Richard Fortus Interview To Be Released Monday

[jarmo]

Oh, relax.

He's just pointing out the humor in having a guy wax poetic how its all about the music and not the money when the guy he's talking about is in a freakin' beer commercial not even one year prior.

I don't even a give a shit, personally.  But you have to see the humor in it.

Ha-ha-ha. It would be funnier if he had actually managed to have a proper response. But no.

The jokes always seem to appear at strange times. When you got no way of responding. That's when the jokes start flying, along with the occasional insults. Funny how that works.




Just a little reflection on this, certain fans look more and more like the definition of trolls. Any way you look at it, some come to a fan site they know is aimed at fans of GN'R to post their so called free opinions they know damn well are pretty much the opposite of the fans here. If that offends you, too bad. Those are the cards I've been dealt by these so called hardcore fans. Just using my right to think freely here!

You want to commend him for that? Great... I have no issue with it.. It IS commendable... but please stop he with he won't do ANYTHING for money (see above)... because that is not true and perfectly FINE !

I don't see that as evidence of the contradictory. Read the quote again.
If you think he did that commercial only to make himself more money, I think you might be wrong.

Nobody seems to have figured it out, or they "forgot to remember" it. But who do you think would pay for recording sessions? Where does the money to record and film a show come from? Universal Music? I don't think so.




/jarmo

[JAEBALL]

I didn't say he did a commercial only to make money...ever.

If I wasn't clear.. then my bad.

But I think it is part of the big picture of being a musician/celebrity/ performer.

I realize that I should say I think in front of every post here going forward.

[mortismurphy]

So when I prove you wrong, that's all you can produce?

Come again?

There is a disconnect between Fortus's portrayal of Axl, and the protract of Axl we receive, whether you like it or not:

Fortus said, ''he won't whore himself out, he won't do anything for business or money; it's just about the music.'' A Budweiser advert would seem to contradict this, in most people's estimation. I mean people are the first to pounce on Slash when he does things like this. Why should it be different with Axl?

Ain't singin' for Miller
Don't sing for Bud
I won't sing for politicians
Ain't singin' for Spuds
This note's for you.

- This Notes For You by Neil Young

Returning to the above quote by Fortus, we have already established that he meant that Axl has resisted the urge to reunite because of the 'music'. What 'music'? To have musical integrity, would, presumably entail releasing music in the first place. Or does he mean one album in twenty years, that Axl has zealously guarded the integrity of, that one album, Chinese Democracy? Axl has spent the last few years criss-crossing between South America and Vegas, playing very samey setlists, with seemingly no rhyme nor reason. I am sure cash was made though. How does the last few years inherently possess more 'integrity' than reuniting for a cash bonanza? New gnr already market themselves through old band tropes, case in point the Appetite for Democracy cover. Ashba clearly adopts a Slash persona, as distinct from 'weirdos' like Bucket and Robin. The new-gnr/Chinese iconography has all been jettisoned, replaced with 1987 vintage, strippers and all. Why does all this possess more integrity than reuniting?

[Ginger King]

So when I prove you wrong, that's all you can produce?

Come again?

There is a disconnect between Fortus's portrayal of Axl, and the protract of Axl we receive, whether you like it or not:

Fortus said, ''he won't whore himself out, he won't do anything for business or money; it's just about the music.'' A Budweiser advert would seem to contradict this, in most people's estimation. I mean people are the first to pounce on Slash when he does things like this. Why should it be different with Axl?

Ain't singin' for Miller
Don't sing for Bud
I won't sing for politicians
Ain't singin' for Spuds
This note's for you.

- This Notes For You by Neil Young

Returning to the above quote by Fortus, we have already established that he meant that Axl has resisted the urge to reunite because of the 'music'. What 'music'? To have musical integrity, would, presumably entail releasing music in the first place. Or does he mean one album in twenty years, that Axl has zealously guarded the integrity of, that one album, Chinese Democracy? Axl has spent the last few years criss-crossing between South America and Vegas, playing very samey setlists, with seemingly no rhyme nor reason. I am sure cash was made though. How does the last few years inherently possess more 'integrity' than reuniting for a cash bonanza? New gnr already market themselves through old band tropes, case in point the Appetite for Democracy cover. Ashba clearly adopts a Slash persona, as distinct from 'weirdos' like Bucket and Robin. The new-gnr/Chinese iconography has all been jettisoned, replaced with 1987 vintage, strippers and all. Why does all this possess more integrity than reuniting?

The proposition that Axl?s a sell out because he did a beer commercial in Brazil in laughable.  Come on!  Celebrities get paid to do appearances, endorse products, be in commercials, etc.  Given his name recognition, he easily could have done this over the years to make some extra cash and keep his name out there.  But, IMO, he?s very selective about when, and to what extent, he does things in public.  Maybe he?s conscious of not over-exposing himself, or maybe he just doesn?t like doing it.  This may be a place where the integrity label makes sense.

Obviously, there are degrees to which one may ?sell out.?  Doing a commercial in Brazil doesn?t even scratch the surface.  I mean, it?s not as if he was in a trailer for a Sponge Bob Square Pants movie?

[JAEBALL]

So when I prove you wrong, that's all you can produce?

Come again?

There is a disconnect between Fortus's portrayal of Axl, and the protract of Axl we receive, whether you like it or not:

Fortus said, ''he won't whore himself out, he won't do anything for business or money; it's just about the music.'' A Budweiser advert would seem to contradict this, in most people's estimation. I mean people are the first to pounce on Slash when he does things like this. Why should it be different with Axl?

Ain't singin' for Miller
Don't sing for Bud
I won't sing for politicians
Ain't singin' for Spuds
This note's for you.

- This Notes For You by Neil Young

Returning to the above quote by Fortus, we have already established that he meant that Axl has resisted the urge to reunite because of the 'music'. What 'music'? To have musical integrity, would, presumably entail releasing music in the first place. Or does he mean one album in twenty years, that Axl has zealously guarded the integrity of, that one album, Chinese Democracy? Axl has spent the last few years criss-crossing between South America and Vegas, playing very samey setlists, with seemingly no rhyme nor reason. I am sure cash was made though. How does the last few years inherently possess more 'integrity' than reuniting for a cash bonanza? New gnr already market themselves through old band tropes, case in point the Appetite for Democracy cover. Ashba clearly adopts a Slash persona, as distinct from 'weirdos' like Bucket and Robin. The new-gnr/Chinese iconography has all been jettisoned, replaced with 1987 vintage, strippers and all. Why does all this possess more integrity than reuniting?

The proposition that Axl?s a sell out because he did a beer commercial in Brazil in laughable.  Come on!  Celebrities get paid to do appearances, endorse products, be in commercials, etc.  Given his name recognition, he easily could have done this over the years to make some extra cash and keep his name out there.  But, IMO, he?s very selective about when, and to what extent, he does things in public.  Maybe he?s conscious of not over-exposing himself, or maybe he just doesn?t like doing it.  This may be a place where the integrity label makes sense.

Obviously, there are degrees to which one may ?sell out.?  Doing a commercial in Brazil doesn?t even scratch the surface.  I mean, it?s not as if he was in a trailer for a Sponge Bob Square Pants movie?

Yeah the whole thing is stupid... I'd like to see Axl on tv as much as possible ... or at least more than I have over the years.

I also get a kick out of seeing Slash or whoever involved in other places as well...

Only in GNR la la land do people get offended or disturbed by it.

[jarmo]

No worries JAEBALL.

Just painting a picture.
I've yet to see some actually agree with Richard instead of pointing out how he's not right.

Does having musical integrity mean one would never license a song to a commercial or appear in one? No.
Does it mean you can't play the songs a majority of the crowd at your shows love and enjoy singing along to? No.
Does it mean there's a risk that your beliefs and morals will produce decisions that will piss off some of the people of the Internet? Quite possibly.

Fortus said, ''he won't whore himself out, he won't do anything for business or money; it's just about the music.'' A Budweiser advert would seem to contradict this, in most people's estimation. I mean people are the first to pounce on Slash when he does things like this. Why should it be different with Axl?

You're assuming Axl did that commercial for money alone. How do you know? Like I said, who pays for the recording?

Did you buy Neil's new music player that he's selling? Using his name to sell a product. Oh no!

Returning to the above quote by Fortus, we have already established that he meant that Axl has resisted the urge to reunite because of the 'music'. What 'music'? To have musical integrity, would, presumably entail releasing music in the first place. Or does he mean one album in twenty years, that Axl has zealously guarded the integrity of, that one album, Chinese Democracy? Axl has spent the last few years criss-crossing between South America and Vegas, playing very samey setlists, with seemingly no rhyme nor reason. I am sure cash was made though. How does the last few years inherently possess more 'integrity' than reuniting for a cash bonanza? New gnr already market themselves through old band tropes, case in point the Appetite for Democracy cover. Ashba clearly adopts a Slash persona, as distinct from 'weirdos' like Bucket and Robin. The new-gnr/Chinese iconography has all been jettisoned, replaced with 1987 vintage, strippers and all. Why does all this possess more integrity than reuniting?

A. Musical integrity in a nut shell, you don't release anything until YOU think it's ready. Very simple. Why this escapes you, I have no idea.
B. Why are you here?




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Ha-ha-ha. It would be funnier if he had actually managed to have a proper response. But no.

And how do you define "proper response" here?  He drops to his knees and begs for your forgiveness?

He made a joke.  Would it kill you to let down your guard from time to time and have a laugh?  What's the worst that could happen?  You look human for a sec?

Life's too short for all this petty squabbling, man.

[D-GenerationX]

Just painting a picture.
I've yet to see some actually agree with Richard instead of pointing out how he's not right.

Perhaps they don't agree with his spin on the matter.  Is that not allowed?

Is "right on!" the only acceptable response here?

[D-GenerationX]

Musical integrity in a nut shell, you don't release anything until YOU think it's ready. Very simple. Why this escapes you, I have no idea.

This presumes everyone believes that to be the whole story.  Several of us do not.

Its a huge part, sure.  But not the beginning and end of it.  Most of the pushback you see is in response to the theory this is ALL 100% musical integrity and nothing else.  That doesn't ring true to all of us.

[mortismurphy]

So when I prove you wrong, that's all you can produce?

Come again?

There is a disconnect between Fortus's portrayal of Axl, and the protract of Axl we receive, whether you like it or not:

Fortus said, ''he won't whore himself out, he won't do anything for business or money; it's just about the music.'' A Budweiser advert would seem to contradict this, in most people's estimation. I mean people are the first to pounce on Slash when he does things like this. Why should it be different with Axl?

Ain't singin' for Miller
Don't sing for Bud
I won't sing for politicians
Ain't singin' for Spuds
This note's for you.

- This Notes For You by Neil Young

Returning to the above quote by Fortus, we have already established that he meant that Axl has resisted the urge to reunite because of the 'music'. What 'music'? To have musical integrity, would, presumably entail releasing music in the first place. Or does he mean one album in twenty years, that Axl has zealously guarded the integrity of, that one album, Chinese Democracy? Axl has spent the last few years criss-crossing between South America and Vegas, playing very samey setlists, with seemingly no rhyme nor reason. I am sure cash was made though. How does the last few years inherently possess more 'integrity' than reuniting for a cash bonanza? New gnr already market themselves through old band tropes, case in point the Appetite for Democracy cover. Ashba clearly adopts a Slash persona, as distinct from 'weirdos' like Bucket and Robin. The new-gnr/Chinese iconography has all been jettisoned, replaced with 1987 vintage, strippers and all. Why does all this possess more integrity than reuniting?

The proposition that Axl?s a sell out because he did a beer commercial in Brazil in laughable.  Come on!  Celebrities get paid to do appearances, endorse products, be in commercials, etc.  Given his name recognition, he easily could have done this over the years to make some extra cash and keep his name out there.  But, IMO, he?s very selective about when, and to what extent, he does things in public.  Maybe he?s conscious of not over-exposing himself, or maybe he just doesn?t like doing it.  This may be a place where the integrity label makes sense.

Obviously, there are degrees to which one may ?sell out.?  Doing a commercial in Brazil doesn?t even scratch the surface.  I mean, it?s not as if he was in a trailer for a Sponge Bob Square Pants movie?

I never made the accusation that ''Axl?s a sell out because he did a beer commercial in Brazil''. Straw Man. It was Fortus who said,  ''he won't whore himself out, he won't do anything for business or money; it's just about the music''; I merely - this is my argument - have difficulty reconciling that statement by Richard Fortus with the Axl who appeared in a Budweiser commercial. If you want my own opinion on the commercial, I cringed at the time but I saw it as relatively trivial and am perfectly aware of the commercialism of the music industry.
 
Whether you like it or not, the commercial contradicts what Fortus says.

I honestly do not see much different between Sponge Bob Square Pants and Bud. The former at least has irony and is a fun 'end product'. The latter at least has the merits of being a product (loosely) connected with the rock n' roll genre. Neither are particularly appealing usages of the artist's time.

[mortismurphy]

No worries JAEBALL.

Just painting a picture.
I've yet to see some actually agree with Richard instead of pointing out how he's not right.

Does having musical integrity mean one would never license a song to a commercial or appear in one? No.
Does it mean you can't play the songs a majority of the crowd at your shows love and enjoy singing along to? No.
Does it mean there's a risk that your beliefs and morals will produce decisions that will piss off some of the people of the Internet? Quite possibly.

Fortus said, ''he won't whore himself out, he won't do anything for business or money; it's just about the music.'' A Budweiser advert would seem to contradict this, in most people's estimation. I mean people are the first to pounce on Slash when he does things like this. Why should it be different with Axl?

You're assuming Axl did that commercial for money alone. How do you know? Like I said, who pays for the recording?

Did you buy Neil's new music player that he's selling? Using his name to sell a product. Oh no!

Returning to the above quote by Fortus, we have already established that he meant that Axl has resisted the urge to reunite because of the 'music'. What 'music'? To have musical integrity, would, presumably entail releasing music in the first place. Or does he mean one album in twenty years, that Axl has zealously guarded the integrity of, that one album, Chinese Democracy? Axl has spent the last few years criss-crossing between South America and Vegas, playing very samey setlists, with seemingly no rhyme nor reason. I am sure cash was made though. How does the last few years inherently possess more 'integrity' than reuniting for a cash bonanza? New gnr already market themselves through old band tropes, case in point the Appetite for Democracy cover. Ashba clearly adopts a Slash persona, as distinct from 'weirdos' like Bucket and Robin. The new-gnr/Chinese iconography has all been jettisoned, replaced with 1987 vintage, strippers and all. Why does all this possess more integrity than reuniting?

A. Musical integrity in a nut shell, you don't release anything until YOU think it's ready. Very simple. Why this escapes you, I have no idea.
B. Why are you here?




/jarmo

A/ I am sorry but I connect musical integrity more with, financial whoring - although this can relate to what you say in the sense that commercial factors might imperil your music (case in point Paul Stanley wanting to re-write Jungle).

B/ Because it is a Guns N' Roses forum - presumably the same reason everyone is here! Stupid question.

[mortismurphy]

So when I prove you wrong, that's all you can produce?

Come again?

There is a disconnect between Fortus's portrayal of Axl, and the protract of Axl we receive, whether you like it or not:

Fortus said, ''he won't whore himself out, he won't do anything for business or money; it's just about the music.'' A Budweiser advert would seem to contradict this, in most people's estimation. I mean people are the first to pounce on Slash when he does things like this. Why should it be different with Axl?

Ain't singin' for Miller
Don't sing for Bud
I won't sing for politicians
Ain't singin' for Spuds
This note's for you.

- This Notes For You by Neil Young

Returning to the above quote by Fortus, we have already established that he meant that Axl has resisted the urge to reunite because of the 'music'. What 'music'? To have musical integrity, would, presumably entail releasing music in the first place. Or does he mean one album in twenty years, that Axl has zealously guarded the integrity of, that one album, Chinese Democracy? Axl has spent the last few years criss-crossing between South America and Vegas, playing very samey setlists, with seemingly no rhyme nor reason. I am sure cash was made though. How does the last few years inherently possess more 'integrity' than reuniting for a cash bonanza? New gnr already market themselves through old band tropes, case in point the Appetite for Democracy cover. Ashba clearly adopts a Slash persona, as distinct from 'weirdos' like Bucket and Robin. The new-gnr/Chinese iconography has all been jettisoned, replaced with 1987 vintage, strippers and all. Why does all this possess more integrity than reuniting?

The proposition that Axl?s a sell out because he did a beer commercial in Brazil in laughable.  Come on!  Celebrities get paid to do appearances, endorse products, be in commercials, etc.  Given his name recognition, he easily could have done this over the years to make some extra cash and keep his name out there.  But, IMO, he?s very selective about when, and to what extent, he does things in public.  Maybe he?s conscious of not over-exposing himself, or maybe he just doesn?t like doing it.  This may be a place where the integrity label makes sense.

Obviously, there are degrees to which one may ?sell out.?  Doing a commercial in Brazil doesn?t even scratch the surface.  I mean, it?s not as if he was in a trailer for a Sponge Bob Square Pants movie?

Yeah the whole thing is stupid... I'd like to see Axl on tv as much as possible ... or at least more than I have over the years.

I also get a kick out of seeing Slash or whoever involved in other places as well...

Only in GNR la la land do people get offended or disturbed by it.

This is garbage. There are multiple example of a fan backlash when faced with, examples of selling out.

[jarmo]

And how do you define "proper response" here?  He drops to his knees and begs for your forgiveness?

Something along the lines of what he managed later. Too much to ask?

Perhaps they don't agree with his spin on the matter.  Is that not allowed?

Why is everything always a spin to you? That's what I'm interested in hearing.
Why is it that anything even remotely positive is a spin? Why can't that be his free thinking opinion and/or a fact?
Ever thought that this applies to yourself as well? Most of the things you say are negative spins? Or doesn't it apply to you?

This presumes everyone believes that to be the whole story.  Several of us do not.

Its a huge part, sure.  But not the beginning and end of it.  Most of the pushback you see is in response to the theory this is ALL 100% musical integrity and nothing else.  That doesn't ring true to all of us.

And you don't believe that because you know, or you think you know?

I never made the accusation that ''Axl?s a sell out because he did a beer commercial in Brazil''. Straw Man. It was Fortus who said,  ''he won't whore himself out, he won't do anything for business or money; it's just about the music''; I merely - this is my argument - have difficulty reconciling that statement by Richard Fortus with the Axl who appeared in a Budweiser commercial.

So according to you, whoring out is one commercial in I don't know how many years. What do you call anyone who does more than that?

Also, where do you think the money spent on recording and filming come from?

A/ I am sorry but I connect musical integrity more with, financial whoring - although this can relate to what you say in the sense that commercial factors might imperil your music (case in point Paul Stanley wanting to re-write Jungle).

Does it seem to you like Axl lacks musical integrity and will do anything for money?

B/ Because it is a Guns N' Roses forum - presumably the same reason everyone is here! Stupid question.

No, it's not stupid. Yes, it's a GN'R fan site. Have you noticed that your opinions are more in line with those people who aren't actual GN'R fans, than those who are?
Those people share your negative spin on everything. Yet, they're not on fan sites.... Interesting isn't it?



/jarmo

[mortismurphy]

So according to you, whoring out is one commercial in I don't know how many years. What do you call anyone who does more than that?

Also, where do you think the money spent on recording and filming come from?

Jarmo, I will spell it out for you because you seem to have problems with language.

This,

'he won't whore himself out, he won't do anything for business or money; it's just about the music.''

Contradicts, this

The Budweiser commercial.


That is my ultimate point. I am not making some overriding statement on where, Axl sits, on the 'league table of selling out'. I am merely stating that Fortus's depiction of Axl does not fit the public persona.

[jarmo]

No, I get what you are saying. Yet, why can't you answer the questions. Where do you think money spend on the art itself, recording music, filming shows and so on comes from?

He won't do anything for money. It means, the money is not the motivation! The music is!


If you want to buy a new bicycle, you either save your weekly allowances or get a job after school. The money's not the motivation, getting the bicycle is the motivation.



/jarmo

[JAEBALL]

No, I get what you are saying. Yet, why can't you answer the questions. Where do you think money spend on the art itself, recording music, filming shows and so on comes from?

He won't do anything for money. It means, the money is not the motivation! The music is!


If you want to buy a new bicycle, you either save your weekly allowances or get a job after school. The money's not the motivation, getting the bicycle is the motivation.



/jarmo

This is a good analogy.

[mortismurphy]

No, I get what you are saying. Yet, why can't you answer the questions. Where do you think money spend on the art itself, recording music, filming shows and so on comes from?

He won't do anything for money. It means, the money is not the motivation! The music is!


If you want to buy a new bicycle, you either save your weekly allowances or get a job after school. The money's not the motivation, getting the bicycle is the motivation.



/jarmo

There is no evidence that Axl did the advert to get money to plunge into a (speculative) record. This is, will o' the wisp Jarmo-thinking, desperately clutching at straws to exonerate Axl and protect him from slights, negativity and mistakes. For all you know he may have spent the money on a new car or a holiday! He might have got his Bud money and chucked it on a losing horse or blew the lot on cocaine. He might have bought a Rolling Stones ticket (that would have used a lot of it up!)

But to answer your question, the record company finances albums (and becomes the default owner of the mechanical copy).

[jarmo]

But to answer your question, the record company finances albums (and becomes the default owner of the mechanical copy).

Does it seem like this is always the case?


Your spin is the usual. Lots of assumptions.
An artist makes money and uses it to invest in his art and band. That concept is alien to you for some reason. The reason I assume is, it's Axl and GN'R, so it can't be true. Doesn't fit your view of how things are.

There is no evidence of your assumption being right either. Yet you make claims that it's possible!


Also, I don't think Axl needs to buy concert tickets.... 

Here's a photo from Del's Facebook, taken back in Australia in 2013:




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Why is everything always a spin to you? That's what I'm interested in hearing.
Why is it that anything even remotely positive is a spin? Why can't that be his free thinking opinion and/or a fact?
Ever thought that this applies to yourself as well? Most of the things you say are negative spins? Or doesn't it apply to you?

Of course it applies to me, absolutely.  It applies to all of us, about everything.

There is some level of spin in everything we say.  How else do you explain differing opinions on the same bit of information?

Handiest example is obviously politics.  Both sides are given the same raw data and, odds are, both have wildly divergent takes on it.  It will tend to conform with how they see things.  There is no "right" or "wrong".  You both put your best argument forward, and the people decide.  

And may the most persuasive man win.

This presumes everyone believes that to be the whole story.  Several of us do not.

Its a huge part, sure.  But not the beginning and end of it.  Most of the pushback you see is in response to the theory this is ALL 100% musical integrity and nothing else.  That doesn't ring true to all of us.

And you don't believe that because you know, or you think you know?

I make a logical deduction, as I do anything.

Using a simple pie chart to explain these delays, I would have 3 portions :

- musical integrity
- self doubt
- "not wanting to deal with the bullshit of releasing an album" (this one is something of a catch all category)

Musical integrity occupies 100% of the pie chart at the beginning.  So if you tell me that you aren't going to crank something out in 6 months just to get it out there, that makes sense to me.

But as more time passes, and in the case of this band that is years upon years, the musical integrity portion of the graph shrinks and gives ground to the other two categories.  Musical integrity is still present, but its no longer 100% of the equation.  Those other 2 areas become very real factors the longer this drags on.

Seems to me, some have a problem conceding that to be the case.  They have either philosophical or (more likely, in my opinion) emotional reasons to not want to concede there might be any doubt or unwillingness on Axl's part to get on with it.  It bothers them to say those things out loud.

That is the disconnect here, as I see it.

[D-GenerationX]

Does it seem to you like Axl lacks musical integrity and will do anything for money?

No, clearly not.  There has never nor will ever be a reunion, which is huge coin.

However, what was keeping the name?  Was that about money or art?  It was about money.  And it was the right move.  The other 2 are dodos that kick themselves every day.

So its not as clear cut as you might suggest.