Richard Fortus Interview To Be Released Monday

[jarmo]

Jarmo, the name Guns N' Roses really didn't mean anything until the classic lineup was formed and AFD was released.  You can spin it however you like, but that's a fact.

That's your spin. You don't like the fact tat the name existed before those other guys joined. You can make claims about how it didn't mean anything or how those guys alone made it mean something. Whatever you want. None of that changes that there was a band named Guns N' Roses before those guys were in that band!

 

We need more active threads.  Spread out some of this variance.

Or that somebody didn't bring up these Dead Horse topics almost, if not, every week. Is the need for attention that bad that you can't just let these topics rest already? We know you don't agree with the name issue, we know you don't like the setlist or the promotion of Chinese Democracy. We know. No need to bring it up. Can't you ust go and talk to your friends about these topics? I'm sure they'll be thrilled to talk to you about them, again. And again.




/jarmo




 

[D-GenerationX]

We need more active threads.  Spread out some of this variance.

Or that somebody didn't bring up these Dead Horse topics almost, if not, every week. Is the need for attention that bad that you can't just let these topics rest already? We know you don't agree with the name issue, we know you don't like the setlist or the promotion of Chinese Democracy. We know. No need to bring it up. Can't you ust go and talk to your friends about these topics? I'm sure they'll be thrilled to talk to you about them, again. And again.

OK.  Another way to go.  There are no bad ideas.

Let's call this one Plan B.  For now.

[ice cream sand pig]

My 3 cents

Artistic Integrity: Axl has it.

The name: Thank God Axl has it. I'd take CD and CD alone over the entire existence of VR combined any day.

The commercial: That rendition of paradise city was really shitty. On the other hand, seeing Axl in a "thing", even if it was just a short appearance in a Budweiser commercial, was really cool. I don't care if he's using the money to go bowling in Dubai, it makes no difference to me.

Seeing him in anything would be cool as long as it wasn't a porno. I mean sure, if that's his thing then go for it, but I wouldn't want to see it. Other than that, bring it on! Put him on Oprah and let him talk with Eckhart Tolle, I'll watch it.  

[jarmo]

Let's call this one Plan B.  For now.

No, it's plan A. Your kind of person is the reason why the Dead Horse section has existed for over a decade.
See, your interesting discussions aren't as unique as a snowflake after all. Sorry.

Plan B will be that we start enforcing this a bit more, which means you'll see more of those posts moved to the proper section. So then you can complain about the lack of attention.





/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

My 3 cents

Artistic Integrity: Axl has it.

The name: Thank God Axl has it. I'd take CD and CD alone over the entire existence of VR combined any day.

The commercial: That rendition of paradise city was really shitty. On the other hand, seeing Axl in a "thing", even if it was just a short appearance in a Budweiser commercial, was really cool. I don't care if he's using the money to go bowling in Dubai. Seeing him in anything would be cool as long as it wasn't a porno. I mean sure, if that's his thing then go for it, but I wouldn't want to see it. Other than that, bring it on! Put him on Oprah and let him talk with Eckhart Tolle, I'll watch it.  

"bowling in Dubai".  Hahahahaha

And yeah, I'd rather have CD than not.

[EmilyGNR]

My 3 cents

Artistic Integrity: Axl has it.

The name: Thank God Axl has it. I'd take CD and CD alone over the entire existence of VR combined any day.

The commercial: That rendition of paradise city was really shitty. On the other hand, seeing Axl in a "thing", even if it was just a short appearance in a Budweiser commercial, was really cool. I don't care if he's using the money to go bowling in Dubai, it makes no difference to me.

Seeing him in anything would be cool as long as it wasn't a porno. I mean sure, if that's his thing then go for it, but I wouldn't want to see it. Other than that, bring it on! Put him on Oprah and let him talk with Eckhart Tolle, I'll watch it.  

Hi Rudy

I agree completely about the artistic integrity, and I think that is a very valued conviction, It is all about quality over quantity for me.

[ice cream sand pig]

Didn't you know? He goes bowling in Dubai every weekend. All the pins have Slash's face on them, and when he makes a strike, Jarmo, Del, Fernando and Beta give him a group hug. When he doesn't, he complains that he's gonna go home because the bowling equipment isn't working right. Poor Axl, with all that self doubt and everything. I love the internet fans' caricature of him.  

Hi Emily! I have come to the point that I would not take the album from Axl if I had the power to, although I used to feel differently about that. Ultimately I don't want it if he doesn't want to give it to me, even though I do go kind of crazy with desire over it sometimes. I think it's neat that he's in the situation he is in. He really doesn't seem too concerned with pleasing anyone, so good for him. Must be nice to be free from the need to please others.

[EmilyGNR]

Didn't you know? He goes bowling in Dubai every weekend. All the pins have Slash's face on them, and when he makes a strike, Jarmo, Del, Fernando and Beta give him a group hug. When he doesn't, he complains that he's gonna go home because the bowling equipment isn't working right. Poor Axl, with all that self doubt and everything. I love the internet fans' caricature of him.  

Hi Emily! I have come to the point that I would not take the album from Axl if I had the power to, although I used to feel differently about that. Ultimately I don't want it if he doesn't want to give it to me, even though I do go kind of crazy with desire over it sometimes. I think it's neat that he's in the situation he is in. He really doesn't seem too concerned with pleasing anyone, so good for him. Must be nice to be free from the need to please others.

Artists create on their own timeframe, how can you legislate creativity?

You can't please everyone, so you have to please yourself. Pandering to others' demands usually isn't helpful in the long run.
People often confuse wants with needs, and this isn't healthy nor helpful for them, so they end up bitter and angry and wanting to blame someone else for their own immaturity and stupidity.

It is always good to see you here Rudy, don't be such a stranger 

[mortismurphy]

As I said before, the name should have been retired. Axl could have gone on his name and do whatever he wants. I think he could have had an Ozzy like career.

That's interesting.

If he went under his own name, but hooked up with a Buckethead type, would that have worked?  I think it would have.

But, much like things are now, only if he kept at it.  Ozzy, drunk though he may have been, worked pretty tirelessly to sell himself as a viable solo act.  

Is Axl doing that?  Dunno.  But doubtful.  

Is there less pressure though?  Yeah, maybe.  And maybe that changes things.

I would agree that keeping the name has been something of a mixed blessing for Axl.

I think I disagree.

I'm not sure he could have kept things going in the fashion he did without it.  Is 'Axl & Bunch Of Dudes' headlining RIR III?  Hard to believe.  But 'Guns N' Roses' does.

Would the label have poured all that money into an unproven name with an unproven band?  Seems like a stretch.  But you'll throw good money after bad for a new Guns N' Roses record.

The comparisons to the old band were inevitable, and no, they don't help him.  The fact some people would not give this much of a chance?  Obvious.

But I still think, on average, its done Axl far more good than bad to hold onto that name.

I said it was a 'mixed' blessing. I basically agree with what you wrote. My reading of it is, the name stuck Axl back into the arenas and gave him a carte blanche on setlists. It probably added another 100,000 to CD sales also. Negatively though, he is working in Slash's shadow and (unsuccessfully) will always compete for legitimacy. It is a constant fight for him, legitimacy.

[mortismurphy]

My 3 cents

Artistic Integrity: Axl has it.

The name: Thank God Axl has it. I'd take CD and CD alone over the entire existence of VR combined any day.

The commercial: That rendition of paradise city was really shitty. On the other hand, seeing Axl in a "thing", even if it was just a short appearance in a Budweiser commercial, was really cool. I don't care if he's using the money to go bowling in Dubai, it makes no difference to me.

Seeing him in anything would be cool as long as it wasn't a porno. I mean sure, if that's his thing then go for it, but I wouldn't want to see it. Other than that, bring it on! Put him on Oprah and let him talk with Eckhart Tolle, I'll watch it.  

It seems there is two laws here, one for Slash, one for Axl. Both have provided evidence of 'selling out' yet square pants has apparently more integrity than a Bud commercial. How does that work? How does that one work out? It is merely stated.

Perhaps the best exit here is to except the fact that Axl appeared in a tremendously tacky commercial for cash. He looked like an idiot in it. End of discussion. Face facts. Move on. We criticised him for it. We have moved on.  Pele, the legendary Brazilian footballer, began selling condoms when he had retired. This has not eradicated the magical feats of 1958 or 1970. People merely said, 'what a dick. He must need the cash. Oh well'' and moved on. It did not even override his status as an ambassador of world sport - still today. It merely became a (side) joke. Unfortunately everything here has to be jarmoized, by which, eradicated of humour and turned into a 'life and death serious discussion upon Axl's integrity'. Jarmo's agenda is, everything has to be perfect with - for -  Axl. The notion that Axl would appear in a totally shit and laughable ad for cash is, completely implausible.

The irony is, I personally do not hold the ad against him (as I believe nobody here does). He appeared in it. Looked a dick. Accepted the cash. Move on. This is the music industry. Who cares? Yet, we must have this ''web of speculative factors, pining the success of a Budweiser advert on the arrival of CD2'', items we do not know.

I personally find that scenario preposterous. I am sure - I hope - Axl spent his Bud money on Tequila and had a good evening. Good luck to him. He accepted the ad. Looked like a wanker. Has a cheque.

[EmilyGNR]

As I said before, the name should have been retired. Axl could have gone on his name and do whatever he wants. I think he could have had an Ozzy like career.

That's interesting.

If he went under his own name, but hooked up with a Buckethead type, would that have worked?  I think it would have.

But, much like things are now, only if he kept at it.  Ozzy, drunk though he may have been, worked pretty tirelessly to sell himself as a viable solo act.  

Is Axl doing that?  Dunno.  But doubtful.  

Is there less pressure though?  Yeah, maybe.  And maybe that changes things.

I would agree that keeping the name has been something of a mixed blessing for Axl.

I think I disagree.

I'm not sure he could have kept things going in the fashion he did without it.  Is 'Axl & Bunch Of Dudes' headlining RIR III?  Hard to believe.  But 'Guns N' Roses' does.

Would the label have poured all that money into an unproven name with an unproven band?  Seems like a stretch.  But you'll throw good money after bad for a new Guns N' Roses record.

The comparisons to the old band were inevitable, and no, they don't help him.  The fact some people would not give this much of a chance?  Obvious.

But I still think, on average, its done Axl far more good than bad to hold onto that name.

I said it was a 'mixed' blessing. I basically agree with what you wrote. My reading of it is, the name stuck Axl back into the arenas and gave him a carte blanche on setlists. It probably added another 100,000 to CD sales also. Negatively though, he is working in Slash's shadow and (unsuccessfully) will always compete for legitimacy. It is a constant fight for him, legitimacy.

Nonsense, dont project your dreary pessimism onto the situation, GNR is a very legitimate band in anyone's view except the consistent haters and trolls that find fault with literally everything GNR does.

Arguing about the band name is ridiculous, Axl brought the name in, why shouldn't he use it, and what right do some internet imbeciles have to criticize him for it. Some "fans" have no end to their entitlement issues and whining.  

[mortismurphy]

As I said before, the name should have been retired. Axl could have gone on his name and do whatever he wants. I think he could have had an Ozzy like career.

That's interesting.

If he went under his own name, but hooked up with a Buckethead type, would that have worked?  I think it would have.

But, much like things are now, only if he kept at it.  Ozzy, drunk though he may have been, worked pretty tirelessly to sell himself as a viable solo act.  

Is Axl doing that?  Dunno.  But doubtful.  

Is there less pressure though?  Yeah, maybe.  And maybe that changes things.

I would agree that keeping the name has been something of a mixed blessing for Axl.

I think I disagree.

I'm not sure he could have kept things going in the fashion he did without it.  Is 'Axl & Bunch Of Dudes' headlining RIR III?  Hard to believe.  But 'Guns N' Roses' does.

Would the label have poured all that money into an unproven name with an unproven band?  Seems like a stretch.  But you'll throw good money after bad for a new Guns N' Roses record.

The comparisons to the old band were inevitable, and no, they don't help him.  The fact some people would not give this much of a chance?  Obvious.

But I still think, on average, its done Axl far more good than bad to hold onto that name.

I said it was a 'mixed' blessing. I basically agree with what you wrote. My reading of it is, the name stuck Axl back into the arenas and gave him a carte blanche on setlists. It probably added another 100,000 to CD sales also. Negatively though, he is working in Slash's shadow and (unsuccessfully) will always compete for legitimacy. It is a constant fight for him, legitimacy.

Nonsense, dont project your dreary pessimism onto the situation, GNR is a very legitimate band in anyone's view except the consistent haters and trolls that find fault with literally everything GNR does.

Arguing about the band name is ridiculous, Axl brought the name in, why shouldn't he use it, and what right do some internet imbeciles have to criticize him for it. Some "fans" have no end to their entitlement issues and whining.  

Do I really need to provide links, connecting to people who do not see Axl's band as a legitimate enterprise, Emily? Do not ask me that as I am sure I am capable of producing half of the internet!!!

[jarmo]

Since virtually the entire discography, image and commercial success of Guns N' Roses, up to the signing of the partnership agreement, was established by a combination of the talents of Axl, Slash, Stradlin and Duff - not Axl, Stradlin Tracii Guns, Ole Beich and Gardener - your point can be disputed.

You can't dispute the simple fact that the name existed before Duff, Slash and Steven joined. You just can't. You're trying to spin it all kinds of ways. The fact still remains.

You are comparing a tour, as confirmed by the then, manager as being in support of studio recording, with a Budweiser commercial? I do not even think an one second appearance and song license in an advert would produce that much capital, compared with the amount of money generated from an arena tour! Perhaps one overdub? Your analogy is absolutely absurd, and all, to sustain a ridiculous will o the wisp scenario to exonerate Axl from a tacky commercial appearance!

I'm NOT comparing, straw man! I asked a simple question which you dance around:

What has changed in your opinion for you to come to the conclusion that what was true in 2006, can't be true in 2014? Just because nobody told you things didn't change, you assume they did?
Quiet dancing around it, you straw man you. Because you make no sense. You just seem stubborn because in your mind that has to be true so you can keep whining about it.

You have no evidence of this changing. But you want to believe it did. Because admitting the opposite means you got less to stand on when arguing your silly negative drivel.

You are also forgetting one thing Jarmo. The commercial is there, Axl swaying his bottle of Budweiser, for us to cringe at. It exists. CD2 does not exist for public consumption. This bonanza this advert allegedly provided for recording did not hasten the album on, did it?

And this is evidence that Universal Music has paid for all recordings since 2008?

Negatively though, he is working in Slash's shadow and (unsuccessfully) will always compete for legitimacy.

In who's shadow? 
And here we've been told for years that GN'R wasn't one man. It was a group effort. Here you are, proving them all wrong with this! Amusing.

Do I really need to provide links, connecting to people who do not see Axl's band as a legitimate enterprise, Emily? Do not ask me that as I am sure I am capable of producing half of the internet!!!

I wouldn't trust your memory or numbers after the $1.99 sale debacle.



On a related note: Have you managed to say anything nice about GN'R today? This week?
I mean, you're on a GN'R fan site as you recall.... This isn't the rest of the Internet. This is for GN'R fans who LIKE the band. Just reminding you so you don't ever forget that. 

Do you also post on Neil Young fan sites and tell people there he looks like a wanker? And how he lacks musical integrity for selling a music player using his name?


Your act is losing it's shine. It's pretty boring reading your constant whining about the band. It's obvious you're not interested in discussion, you're only interested in repeating the same negative drivel day after day. That doesn't sound like anybody who's actually a fan. Yes, you went to shows, but that doesn't automatically make you a fan, it makes you a disgruntled customer. That's what you come across as.

It's not why this site started. So either you start thinking about adjusting your attitude, or you find another place to post. Simple. You don't belong here. Sorry!
I'm eagerly awaiting to see some kind of evidence to back up your claim that you are indeed a fan of GN'R and/or Axl Rose. I'm not talking about being a fan of some line up that existed a decade ago or something. I've tried to give you plenty of chances to adjust to your surroundings, but all you've managed to come up with is the same whining I see on Blabbermouth and other sites like it. And those aren't GN'R fan sites.

When even people around you, who aren't exactly supportive, manage to see certain points while you stubbornly ignore everything, it says a lot.



/jarmo

[pilferk]

Do I really need to provide links, connecting to people who do not see Axl's band as a legitimate enterprise, Emily? Do not ask me that as I am sure I am capable of producing half of the internet!!!

Up front: I'm not trying to be confrontational or argumentative or glib but...yeah...I'd like to see them.

Keeping in mind, to be compelling, they'd need to be from reputable industry folks who:

a) Have no vested financial interests in the band (past or present)
b) Have no overwhelmingly negative or overwhelmingly positive interactions/experiences with the band (meaning Mick Wahl is probably out)
c) Have no personal or business relationships with members of the band (past or present)

They might very well exist...and I've not seen them, so would love to read those points of view as they are probably well presented and I'd like to see their reasoning. And we can take it to "Dead Horse" if jarmo would like...I'd participate.

If you mean you can provide numerous links to fan postings, blogs, etc raging against the name being held by Axl or the band being legit, and that's your counter point to "anyone" ...then...no thanks.  Because, honestly, those opinions don't mean much in the discussion framework.  They're just not all that credible or compelling.

[damnthehaters]

My 3 cents

Artistic Integrity: Axl has it.

The name: Thank God Axl has it. I'd take CD and CD alone over the entire existence of VR combined any day.

The commercial: That rendition of paradise city was really shitty. On the other hand, seeing Axl in a "thing", even if it was just a short appearance in a Budweiser commercial, was really cool. I don't care if he's using the money to go bowling in Dubai, it makes no difference to me.

Seeing him in anything would be cool as long as it wasn't a porno. I mean sure, if that's his thing then go for it, but I wouldn't want to see it. Other than that, bring it on! Put him on Oprah and let him talk with Eckhart Tolle, I'll watch it.  

It seems there is two laws here, one for Slash, one for Axl. Both have provided evidence of 'selling out' yet square pants has apparently more integrity than a Bud commercial. How does that work? How does that one work out? It is merely stated.

Perhaps the best exit here is to except the fact that Axl appeared in a tremendously tacky commercial for cash. He looked like an idiot in it. End of discussion. Face facts. Move on. We criticised him for it. We have moved on.  Pele, the legendary Brazilian footballer, began selling condoms when he had retired. This has not eradicated the magical feats of 1958 or 1970. People merely said, 'what a dick. He must need the cash. Oh well'' and moved on. It did not even override his status as an ambassador of world sport - still today. It merely became a (side) joke. Unfortunately everything here has to be jarmoized, by which, eradicated of humour and turned into a 'life and death serious discussion upon Axl's integrity'. Jarmo's agenda is, everything has to be perfect with - for -  Axl. The notion that Axl would appear in a totally shit and laughable ad for cash is, completely implausible.

The irony is, I personally do not hold the ad against him (as I believe nobody here does). He appeared in it. Looked a dick. Accepted the cash. Move on. This is the music industry. Who cares? Yet, we must have this ''web of speculative factors, pining the success of a Budweiser advert on the arrival of CD2'', items we do not know.

I personally find that scenario preposterous. I am sure - I hope - Axl spent his Bud money on Tequila and had a good evening. Good luck to him. He accepted the ad. Looked like a wanker. Has a cheque.

Not sure what your trying to get at?  Because Axl was in a Bud commercial for a second, you call that a loss of integrity?  Axl does one little thing, and he now has no integrity?  Axl has done other things as well.  However, comparing Axl to Slash in terms of integrity???  C'mon

[mortismurphy]

You can't dispute the simple fact that the name existed before Duff, Slash and Steven joined. You just can't. You're trying to spin it all kinds of ways. The fact still remains.

Straw man. If you look at an earlier post, I stated that the name was created by Axl and Tracii Guns, presupposing that it came before the arrival of Slash. (If you require the nuts and bolts history of it, Guns were founded sometime around March 1985, Duff arriving soon after. Slash and Steven joined, June 1985).

What has changed in your opinion for you to come to the conclusion that what was true in 2006, can't be true in 2014? Just because nobody told you things didn't change, you assume they did?
Quiet dancing around it, you straw man you. Because you make no sense. You just seem stubborn because in your mind that has to be true so you can keep whining about it.

You have no evidence of this changing. But you want to believe it did. Because admitting the opposite means you got less to stand on when arguing your silly negative drivel.

I do not even understand what you are asking from me here. For Axl to require funding in 2014 presupposes that he was recording in 2014 with the intention to release that which has been recorded. Since he has ''x amount of material'' already recorded before 2006, was playing Vegas that year and showed no particular urgency to record or release anything, it is a virtually worthless argument to pursue.

And this is evidence that Universal Music has paid for all recordings since 2008?

You think there has been recording since 2008? Okay.

In who's shadow? 
And here we've been told for years that GN'R wasn't one man. It was a group effort. Here you are, proving them all wrong with this! Amusing.

I agree that it was a group effort. I am sort of, tapping into the public perception of GN'R with that comment, which was, the ''Axl N' Slash'' show, the two big cartoon characters: Axl and Slash. It does not echo my own thoughts, which sees (old) Guns as a far more democratic unit; Stradlin's songwriting was an underrated and vital contribution for instance.

Even you cannot deny that Axl and Slash were the two big characters of the band, for the public?

Have you managed to say anything nice about GN'R today? This week?
I mean, you're on a GN'R fan site as you recall.... This isn't the rest of the Internet. This is for GN'R fans who LIKE the band. Just reminding you so you don't ever forget that. 

Do you want me to wish the various band members 'happy birthday?' Will you be happy then?

Do you also post on Neil Young fan sites and tell people there he looks like a wanker? And how he lacks musical integrity for selling a music player using his name?

If you go on a forum of rusties, you will see a lot of criticism for Neil during a certain period, of about 1980-87ish. He was genre-bending musical, putting out indifferent albums. He also adopted a right wing 'pro-Reagan' stance, unsettling his 'hippy left' fan base. There is a particularly nasty quotation from that period which is not, Shakey's finest hour, (and probably something he regrets, still today). See Jarmo, that is how 'normal' music fans operate. Metallica fans think Lars was a complete wanker on Napster-gate. Stones fans hate some Rolling Stones albums, lousy albums such as Dirty Work and Emotional Rescue. In fact, many Stones fans do not believe the band have put out a decent album since Tattoo You! Beatles fans thought Lennon had ''lost his marbles'' during the infamous, John and Yoko bed-ins. Most Elvis fans hate the cheesy 1960s film period. None of these fans feel the need to construct complex webs of apology to explain away their heroes' failings.

There is always an assumption that, we are dealing with human beings here.

Axl did a cringe worthy cheesy advert for cash. Most people cringed. Most people laughed at it. Most people do not feel the need to exonerate it, by linking it with, ''some farsighted mystical plan, to fund CD2''.

Not sure what your trying to get at?  Because Axl was in a Bud commercial for a second, you call that a loss of integrity?  Axl does one little thing, and he now has no integrity?  Axl has done other things as well.  However, comparing Axl to Slash in terms of integrity???  C'mon

I think you have misread me. The individual act, appearing in a beer commercial, lacked integrity, as an isolated incident. It was, momentarily, a loss of integrity. It does not mean that ''he now has no integrity''. For him to ''have no integrity'' whatsoever would require Aerosmith-type, levels of whoredom.

One can do something for a quick cash fix, look a bit silly as a consequence, yet emerge (relatively) unscathed.

Axl himself might now regret the commercial. He might refer to it as that ''stupid commercial which I foolishly agreed to''. You never know.

Up front: I'm not trying to be confrontational or argumentative or glib but...yeah...I'd like to see them.

To find what most 'general' people think of the new gnr move, Guns without Slash, is astonishingly easier. All you have to do is read the comments sections on youtube.

[D-GenerationX]

Not sure what your trying to get at?  Because Axl was in a Bud commercial for a second, you call that a loss of integrity?  Axl does one little thing, and he now has no integrity?  Axl has done other things as well.  However, comparing Axl to Slash in terms of integrity???  C'mon

Not speaking for him, but this all started out as a joke. 

Fortus was so over the top about how Axl is all about art and does nothing for money....this, despite him being in that Bud commercial not even a year prior.

It was just having a laugh.

Or course, since then, backs got up and wagons were circled and now we are in a death match over a bunch of unrelated tangets.  All because GOD FORBID we have a laugh around here.  This is all SERIOUS BUSINESS.

[D-GenerationX]

If you go on a forum of rusties, you will see a lot of criticism for Neil during a certain period, of about 1980-87ish. He was genre-bending musical, putting out indifferent albums. He also adopted a right wing 'pro-Reagan' stance, unsettling his 'hippy left' fan base. There is a particularly nasty quotation from that period which is not, Shakey's finest hour, (and probably something he regrets, still today). See Jarmo, that is how 'normal' music fans operate. Metallica fans think Lars was a complete wanker on Napster-gate. Stones fans hate some Rolling Stones albums, lousy albums such as Dirty Work and Emotional Rescue. In fact, many Stones fans do not believe the band have put out a decent album since Tattoo You! Beatles fans thought Lennon had ''lost his marbles'' during the infamous, John and Yoko bed-ins. Most Elvis fans hate the cheesy 1960s film period. None of these fans feel the need to construct complex webs of apology to explain away their heroes' failings.

Those people aren't "real fans".

Duh.

[mortismurphy]

Not sure what your trying to get at?  Because Axl was in a Bud commercial for a second, you call that a loss of integrity?  Axl does one little thing, and he now has no integrity?  Axl has done other things as well.  However, comparing Axl to Slash in terms of integrity???  C'mon

Not speaking for him, but this all started out as a joke. 

Fortus was so over the top about how Axl is all about art and does nothing for money....this, despite him being in that Bud commercial not even a year prior.

It was just having a laugh.

Or course, since then, backs got up and wagons were circled and now we are in a death match over a bunch of unrelated tangets.  All because GOD FORBID we have a laugh around here.  This is all SERIOUS BUSINESS.

Exactly. The advert was trivial anyway. Axl looked a bit silly. I think everyone sees it for what it is, a quick cash fix. I laughed at the time. I still laugh at it today. If it offers Jarmo any, emotional support, I will say that it pales in comparison to appearing at the Superbowl with Fegie in a glittery top-hat. If that is what he wants from me, I am willing to concede that?

[JAEBALL]

Not sure what your trying to get at?  Because Axl was in a Bud commercial for a second, you call that a loss of integrity?  Axl does one little thing, and he now has no integrity?  Axl has done other things as well.  However, comparing Axl to Slash in terms of integrity???  C'mon

Not speaking for him, but this all started out as a joke. 

Fortus was so over the top about how Axl is all about art and does nothing for money....this, despite him being in that Bud commercial not even a year prior.

It was just having a laugh.

Or course, since then, backs got up and wagons were circled and now we are in a death match over a bunch of unrelated tangets.  All because GOD FORBID we have a laugh around here.  This is all SERIOUS BUSINESS.

Exactly. The advert was trivial anyway. Axl looked a bit silly. I think everyone sees it for what it is, a quick cash fix. I laughed at the time. I still laugh at it today. If it offers Jarmo any, emotional support, I will say that it pales in comparison to appearing at the Superbowl with Fegie in a glittery top-hat. If that is what he wants from me, I am willing to concede that?

F that.. I got nothing against Fergie lol ... the hat... not Slash's nicest hat......