Richard Fortus Interview To Be Released Monday

[jarmo]

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).

You don't need to lecture me on GN'R history. Don't worry.
Still, nothing you say makes sense.

I do not even understand what you are asking from me here.

I've asked the same thing over two days now!

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.

Is it possible? Yes/No?

You think there has been recording since 2008? Okay.

Axl Rose in 2014: We recorded a lot of things before Chinese was out. We've worked more on some of those things and we've written a few new things

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

Of course, I'll go further. I'd put Axl as #1 in popularity, and Slash as #2.

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

I'd like for you to show some kind of evidence that you're here as a fan instead of a disgruntled customer. That's all.

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.

That wasn't the question. It's not a question about what album you prefer. It's a question of you having very little nice things to say about a band that this site is dedicated to. Whine, whine, whine.
For some reason, this does not register with you. I care very little about how the rest of the Internet works. I'm not here to offer a platform for somebody who has some kind of agenda against GN'R. For whatever reason. That's not a conspiracy theory, you just whine a whole lot. For some reason.

Either you start thinking about why you're a so called fan to begin with, or you take a break until something positive (in your opinion) happens and you don't need to repeat your whiny posts ad nauseam. Simple really.

Thank you!




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

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)

You think reputable industry folks give Guns N' Roses much thought in 2015, pro or con?

I don't.

But this is really just deflection.  You know exactly what he was talking about, so you set this up saying all of that is inadmissible.

Convenient.

[jarmo]

You think reputable industry folks give Guns N' Roses much thought in 2015, pro or con?

Who are these reputable industry folks?



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

You think reputable industry folks give Guns N' Roses much thought in 2015, pro or con?

Who are these reputable industry folks?

Beats the shit out of me.  It wasn't my parameter.

[mortismurphy]

That wasn't the question. It's not a question about what album you prefer. It's a question of you having very little nice things to say about a band that this site is dedicated to. Whine, whine, whine.
For some reason, this does not register with you. I care very little about how the rest of the Internet works. I'm not here to offer a platform for somebody who has some kind of agenda against GN'R. For whatever reason. That's not a conspiracy theory, you just whine a whole lot. For some reason.

In my opinion I am not ''whining''. I am only reacting to events how I see them. If, the tenure of my replies seems overtly, negative, it is only because the band are in a bad place right now: there have been decisions made, which are bad; there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty (Bumblefoot? CD2?); currently the band are on hiatus anywhere which means, there is nothing topical to discuss except events, inherently embedded in the past. I mean what is there to hypothetically discuss, positive or otherwise, that is concurrent?

[jarmo]

You think reputable industry folks give Guns N' Roses much thought in 2015, pro or con?

Who are these reputable industry folks?

Beats the shit out of me.  It wasn't my parameter.

You don't know who you are talking about? Surely you must have an idea since you used the same term.

In my opinion I am not ''whining''. I am only reacting to events how I see them

Ok, fine. How about you take a break until there's a different reaction from you? Some kind of reaction that we can't find on sites full of people who don't like GN'R. 

Edited to add: Your excuse of a bad place right now doesn't exactly make sense. You were up to the same bollocks last year. Nothing about you makes me think this will ever change. Sorry.



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

You think reputable industry folks give Guns N' Roses much thought in 2015, pro or con?

Who are these reputable industry folks?

Beats the shit out of me.  It wasn't my parameter.

You don't know who you are talking about? Surely you must have an idea since you used the same term.

I don't know how he would define the term.

But, frankly, however he did would pretty much include who I'm talking about.  As I think no one in the industry gives much thought to GNR in 2015, pro or con.

[jarmo]

But, frankly, however he did would pretty much include who I'm talking about.  As I think no one in the industry gives much thought to GNR in 2015, pro or con.

And who are you talking about?
Why are you so into these riddles?

Who are these industry folks that you are thinking/talking about and what are they saying/not saying?

I'm curious.




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

But, frankly, however he did would pretty much include who I'm talking about.  As I think no one in the industry gives much thought to GNR in 2015, pro or con.

And who are you talking about?
Why are you so into these riddles?

Who are these industry folks that you are thinking/talking about and what are they saying/not saying?

I'm curious.

You're asking the wrong guy, bro.  This isn't my deal.

[mortismurphy]

Ok, fine. How about you take a break until there's a different reaction from you? Some kind of reaction that we can't find on sites full of people who don't like GN'R. 

Edited to add: Your excuse of a bad place right now doesn't exactly make sense. You were up to the same bollocks last year. Nothing about you makes me think this will ever change. Sorry.

It is an odd scenario you are proposing there, for me - for anyone: self-censorship; only posting when the news can be interpreted 'positively'. What an odd character you are, Jarmo. I could never live how you live. Out of curiosity, do you read newspapers or watch the news? Do you read music magazines which could theoretical give Axl a bad review?

[pilferk]

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.

Yeah, I don't much care what is contained, mostly, in youtube comment sections, by and large.  It's mostly drivel, it's rife with insincere trolling and toxicity, and it's usually not very compelling or interesting. I also don't really think it's representative of what "general" people think, for those same reasons.  

Which is why I was specific in what I hoped you were offering up.

Seems not, though...which is sort of a pity.

[D-GenerationX]

Which is why I was specific in what I hoped you were offering up.

Seems not, though...which is sort of a pity.

You certainly set things up to get the answer you wanted.

But let's even try to play by your rules.  You want "proof" of "reputable industry types" not taking GNR seriously as an operation in the present day.

I don't think you'll find them.  To be fair, I don't think you'd find too much gushing positivity either.  In truth, I don't think you'd find anything.

Isn't that an indicator they are something of an afterthought?  Or does the lack of anything negative mean that the feeling is positive, even if that positivity is similarly unexpressed?

[jarmo]

You're asking the wrong guy, bro.  This isn't my deal.

Ok.

I just find it weird that you talk about people and then you don't know who these people you're talking about are. Makes no sense to me. Sorry.
Like "I don't think those people would say that". Who are they? No idea. Well, how could I know what they would or wouldn't say if I don't know who they are?

It is an odd scenario you are proposing there, for me - for anyone: self-censorship; only posting when the news can be interpreted 'positively'. What an odd character you are, Jarmo. I could never live how you live. Out of curiosity, do you read newspapers or watch the news? Do you read music magazines which could theoretical give Axl a bad review?

I thought I'd give you a chance to adjust to your surroundings before I show you the door. Totally up to you.

Yes, I'm an odd character because I don't have any intentions of letting you use this site as a platform to spread your boring negative shit. Yes, I read many things. Including Neil Young's autobiography. Your grasping at straws is amusing.

Just because I see shit somewhere on the street, doesn't mean I want people to bring it to my doorstep. That's what you are doing. And your lame excuse about doing it because times are so tough. Get fucking real.




/jarmo

[mortismurphy]

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.

Yeah, I don't much care what is contained, mostly, in youtube comment sections, by and large.  It's mostly drivel, it's rife with insincere trolling and toxicity, and it's usually not very compelling or interesting. I also don't really think it's representative of what "general" people think, for those same reasons.  

Which is why I was specific in what I hoped you were offering up.

Seems not, though...which is sort of a pity.

I will tell you one little anecdote. I was at a GN'R gig in, 2012 I think it was (their last European tour?). And everybody is in the foyer at 10:30 waiting for Axl. Everybody is joking and getting a bit drunk, saying things like ''I wonder if Axl shows up'' - you yourself have probably been in one or two of those scenarios. The guy selling the merchandise says to one guy (who was trying to quiz him on, how the whole work team operate when they are on 'Axl time'), ''well, it has never been the same band since Slash left''.

This is the guy selling new gnr t-shirts and posters saying this! I think it is fairly representative of the general rock crowd. They do not consider it Guns without Slash. That is the general consensus. That is how I see the general feelings on the band, anyway.

[pilferk]

You think reputable industry folks give Guns N' Roses much thought in 2015, pro or con?

I don't.

But this is really just deflection.  You know exactly what he was talking about, so you set this up saying all of that is inadmissible.

Convenient.

They don't have to be from 2015.  I'd take anything post 2000, quite frankly.  I just haven't read it.

It's NOT a deflection, though I'm sure you want to paint it as one.  It's about what I would find interesting/compelling in terms of content...and seeing if what I thought he might be offering was actually out there. That's it.

I find information from credible, reputable, people....people with no horse in the race or perceived agenda...interesting. People who have a reputation on the line, which their livelihood is based off of.  Even if their opinion is contrary to my own.  You don't?

I'm not really all that crash hot on reading the same complaints and objections, from the same old folks, for the same reasons.  Opinions are like assholes...everybody has them, well reasoned or not.  And largely the "take" I've seen from some of the fan type posters/bloggers/commenters out there is a) not anything new and b) not all that compelling. Axl is sort of right when he's called the internet a big garbage can.  I mean, it's an overly simplistic take..but the fact is: There are too many folks with their own agendas, looking for their own jollies, with their own unknowable motivations to take a LOT of what's posted on forums, in content comments, etc at ALL seriously.  I'm sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings, but...there it is. You can link me 1000 fan posts raging against the dying of the light and it isn't half as interesting as 2 paragraphs from someone known and respected in the industry.

I said, up front, I wasn't trying to make an argument or a point.  I'm still not.  I was just looking for something interesting to read.

[pilferk]

I will tell you one little anecdote. I was at a GN'R gig in, 2012 I think it was (their last European tour?). And everybody is in the foyer at 10:30 waiting for Axl. Everybody is joking and getting a bit drunk, saying things like ''I wonder if Axl shows up'' - you yourself have probably been in one or two of those scenarios. The guy selling the merchandise says to one guy (who was trying to quiz him on, how the whole work team operate when they are on 'Axl time'), ''well, it has never been the same band since Slash left''.

This is the guy selling new gnr t-shirts and posters saying this! I think it is fairly representative of the general rock crowd. They do not consider it Guns without Slash. That is the general consensus. That is how I see the general feelings on the band, anyway.

Yeah, anecdotes don't really do much for me, either. Sorry.  I think too often people hear the bits they want to hear, and forget the bits that don't support their POV.  That's not just true for GnR, but for life, in general. 

Good story, though. (note, that isn't meant to be read with any sarcasm, seriously).

[D-GenerationX]

I just find it weird that you talk about people and then you don't know who these people you're talking about are. Makes no sense to me. Sorry.
Like "I don't think those people would say that". Who are they? No idea. Well, how could I know what they would or wouldn't say if I don't know who they are?

What, am I speaking fucking Greek over here?

Look, right here, boss :

I don't know how he would define the term.

But, frankly, however he did would pretty much include who I'm talking about.  As I think no one in the industry gives much thought to GNR in 2015, pro or con.

Define those people however you wish.  Make it a select group of 10, of 100, or whatever you want.

However you (or anyone, really) chooses to populate the group, no one is spending a lot of time thinking about present day GNR as a relevant market force.

[mortismurphy]

You're asking the wrong guy, bro.  This isn't my deal.

Ok.

I just find it weird that you talk about people and then you don't know who these people you're talking about are. Makes no sense to me. Sorry.
Like "I don't think those people would say that". Who are they? No idea. Well, how could I know what they would or wouldn't say if I don't know who they are?

It is an odd scenario you are proposing there, for me - for anyone: self-censorship; only posting when the news can be interpreted 'positively'. What an odd character you are, Jarmo. I could never live how you live. Out of curiosity, do you read newspapers or watch the news? Do you read music magazines which could theoretical give Axl a bad review?

I thought I'd give you a chance to adjust to your surroundings before I show you the door. Totally up to you.

Yes, I'm an odd character because I don't have any intentions of letting you use this site as a platform to spread your boring negative shit. Yes, I read many things. Including Neil Young's autobiography. Your grasping at straws is amusing.

Just because I see shit somewhere on the street, doesn't mean I want people to bring it to my doorstep. That's what you are doing. And your lame excuse about doing it because times are so tough. Get fucking real.




/jarmo

I am getting the chop here, am I? Can I just remind you that you are the one swearing and getting irate here!

Negativity Jarmo?

So you read his book? How did you find it? Neil certainly has an eccentric way of organising it. Some people did not like it for that, for its lack of chronology. I liked it, in its own, eccentric, slightly mad aging hippy, way. Neil could only write a book in an uniquely, Neil way.

[pilferk]

Who are these reputable industry folks?

/jarmo

Since I used the term, here's more specifically what I was thinking:

Journos, label insiders/former executives (preferably ones not working at or for Universal/Geffen), promoters....that kinda stuff.  People who are inside the industry, but not necessarily talent, with some experience and reputation to back up that they might know what they're saying.

Not fans.
Not "the man on the street".
Mostly not talent in other bands (though, you know...there are some guys out there that DO know the business really well).

Again, I'm just looking for interesting bits of stuff to read and I haven't seen anyone really "question" Axl's legitimacy or use of the band name.  Not really.  And I wouldn't mind reading a piece like that from someone.

Thats it.

[D-GenerationX]

They don't have to be from 2015.  I'd take anything post 2000, quite frankly.  I just haven't read it.

It's NOT a deflection, though I'm sure you want to paint it as one.  It's about what I would find interesting/compelling in terms of content...and seeing if what I thought he might be offering was actually out there. That's it.

I think its a deflection in the sense that you knew what he meant, as evidenced by the fact you said so right away.  His "half the internet" point was speaking to the vast majority of folks not really being down with GNR version 3.0 in 2015.  And a lot of that was going to be average folk.

So you shut all that down.  That, right there, pretty much kills the conversation.

But, then you set up a wild goose chase of sorts, asking him to come up with specific quotes that run the operation down.  Presumably, you did not think he would be able to find them, and I'd agree with you.  And if he can't produce them he must be talking about his ass.

But he can't produce them, because they don't exist.  He couldn't produce a collection of gushing praise either.  Because within this industry, who is paying attention to a rock band with replacement players that aren't making any impact on the marketplace?

To make a long story short (too late) I'm not sure the premise could be proven or disproven, based on how you'd like the search orchestrated.