New DJ Interview "It looks like we're going to be doing a lot more touring"

[D-GenerationX]

The world is not just "Jarmo and friends" and "negative motherfuckers".  There are clearly degrees to which people view certain things (for example, I have no problem with a Vegas residency, strippers, and flying pianos) yet we all get lumped in the same bucket regardless.

Key point here.

Do I tend to side with a guy like you or mortismurphy more so than not?  Clearly, I do.  But that doesn't mean we are all in lockstep.

Your Vegas example is a great one.  mortis hates it.  I not only don't hate it, I think its kind of cool.  I also don't think its all that different than who this band has always been.  And when he goes down that road that its an embarrassment, I don't even enter the conversation because its not what I think.

Yet I constatnly have to hear how he and I, or I and you...we are all in some sort of groupthink conspiracy to act in concert to bring the forum down. 

[LongGoneDay]

I?ll add my 2 cents here and there, but don?t post a ton because I know my viewpoint isn?t shared by the majority on this forum.
That?s also part of the allure, though. Even though I?m not super high on CD era Guns, some aspects, mainly Axl?s decision making, fascinate me to this day.
It?s also interesting to hear viewpoints from other fans that contrast so starkly against my own.

Definitely not seeking attention. No offense intended to anyone, but where I?m from, the last thing being a 34 year old posting on a GN?R fan forum gets you is looking cool.

I don?t care if it?s Richard?s birthday, or if DJ is slinging a new guitar. Don?t really care what any of current day GN?R, outside of Axl, maybe Dizzy, has to say in interviews, or about their side projects. That stuff doesn?t interest me, but I agree that every thread seems to bleed into the same subjects. A lot of the tired.

Call me crazy, but yeah, the ?name? discussion still interests me, because no matter how strongly either side feels about it, it isn?t a black and white issue.
I understand the majority of posters here are over it, and get that. Makes sense to keep it in the ?Dead Horse? section.

I don?t understand the stigma attached to Dead Horse. I mean, it?s a great fucking song for starters. In fact I?m gonna listen to it right now.
I think Dead Horse is where it?s at.  Why not create threads for the topics that are preferred to be left outside of the main section, and then all of us whiny, negative degenerate disillusioned scumbags with entitlement issues can have a pity party until the cows come home?

Then you guys can take your revenge, and troll us with your sunshine and rainbows.

[D-GenerationX]

Call me crazy, but yeah, the ?name? discussion still interests me, because no matter how strongly either side feels about it, it isn?t a black and white issue.
I understand the majority of posters here are over it, and get that. Makes sense to keep it in the ?Dead Horse? section.

Two things on this :

I also still see some value in the conversation, but mostly because its talking with fellow fans.  Who else would one talk to about such a thing?  Only fellow GNR fans even care, pro or con.

But another thing I think can be a bit of a misnomer is that entire discussions are started about it.  A lot of times, at least to me, the conversation will progress and meander to certain areas (like the name, or the setlist, what have you) where its either used as example or something to make a larger point.

But its not like anyone is proclaiming : "I now wish to talk about the name, and all other aspects of this conversation will cease."

Not really.  But it comes up from time to time in the flow of conversation, because face it, its one of the bigger events in this band's history.

[Ginger King]

Call me crazy, but yeah, the ?name? discussion still interests me, because no matter how strongly either side feels about it, it isn?t a black and white issue.
I understand the majority of posters here are over it, and get that. Makes sense to keep it in the ?Dead Horse? section.

Two things on this :

I also still see some value in the conversation, but mostly because its talking with fellow fans.  Who else would one talk to about such a thing?  Only fellow GNR fans even care, pro or con.

But another thing I think can be a bit of a misnomer is that entire discussions are started about it.  A lot of times, at least to me, the conversation will progress and meander to certain areas (like the name, or the setlist, what have you) where its either used as example or something to make a larger point.

But its not like anyone is proclaiming : "I now wish to talk about the name, and all other aspects of this conversation will cease."

Not really.  But it comes up from time to time in the flow of conversation, because face it, its one of the bigger events in this band's history.

I agree with this (and LongGoneDay?s post).  Take this topic, for example.  The first 6 pages are about DJ?s interview?and then it veers off course to talk about karma points, Aquaman, and Tommy?s interview.

It?s not like, on page 1, someone commented on DJ?s interview and the next post was, ?ok but let?s talk about the setlist.?

Things naturally degrade evolve over time, and we inevitably go on tangents.  I would submit that 6 pages straight about an interview we all could give in our sleep is a lot.  I mean, we should all get karma points for that shit.

[D-GenerationX]

Yeah, once you do those first few pages on a topic, you've pretty much talked it out.

I've suggested several times that by only having 3 or 4 active threads at a time, its basically impossible to keep "on topic".

But the time you hit page 22 of whatever topic, odds are, the conversation has shifted several times.

[pilferk]

Nah, the fanbase would not be better served if this place closed.

As for why I care, its not that I care about this site, per se.  When I was asking you what the hell the is the point of a forum where you'd be cool with no new posts for days at a time, it was more of a general statement.  Its just a concept that makes no sense to me.

It's like throwing a party and saying you don't care if anyone shows up.

Then the issue is with your concept of what a forum HAS to be, to be a forum.  Not with the construct itself.

Volume and activity is, mostly, irrelevant.

It's a place to discuss things.  As long as it's open, and it exists, it "is" what it is.

It might not be what YOU want it to be, but, again, irrelevant.  Since it's not "yours".

I like your party analogy. It fits very well.  But, perhaps, not for the reasons you think.

When I throw a party, I'd rather have a party of 20 people who are fun to hang out with vs 100 who are likely to trash my house.  I'd rather have a low, but steady, buzz of conversation vs a jet plane equivalent roar of sheer, unstructured, noise.

And since I'm throwing the party...that matters.  It's still a party: MY party.

I also control the guest list...and if a guest gets insulting, or insults my guest, or behaves contrary to my expectations of "good behavior", I would politely (and then, not so politely) ask them to leave.

Like I said..it's a good analogy..but perhaps not for the reasons you think.

[pilferk]

But if your feeling is that if he sounds great, you say so, but if he sounds bad, you say nothing...that's where we come to a fork in the road.  He sounds how he sounds.  I just don't see the point in joining in a mass delusion that doesn't paint an accurate picture of the situation.  Who, exactly, am I fooling with that?

And therein lies the real heart of the issue.

You discount anything that falls outside what YOU think is an accurate picture (which may, or may not be) as a "mass delusion".  Rather than a different, and equally possible, or equally valid point of view.  Based on a different perception.

[pilferk]

The world is not just "Jarmo and friends" and "negative motherfuckers".  There are clearly degrees to which people view certain things (for example, I have no problem with a Vegas residency, strippers, and flying pianos) yet we all get lumped in the same bucket regardless.

Key point here.

Do I tend to side with a guy like you or mortismurphy more so than not?  Clearly, I do.  But that doesn't mean we are all in lockstep.

Your Vegas example is a great one.  mortis hates it.  I not only don't hate it, I think its kind of cool.  I also don't think its all that different than who this band has always been.  And when he goes down that road that its an embarrassment, I don't even enter the conversation because its not what I think.

Yet I constatnly have to hear how he and I, or I and you...we are all in some sort of groupthink conspiracy to act in concert to bring the forum down. 

Pot. Kettle. Black.

You (and mortis) do the EXACT same thing.  I can't count the number of times I've been lumped into jarmo's point, by both of you, when I have, in fact, been making a different point, entirely. When it's been argued that "we" are making an argument. That "those with the rose colored glasses" just aren't seeing things clearly.

I'd suggest..if you don't want to be lumped in...don't lump in yourself.

[pilferk]

Yeah, once you do those first few pages on a topic, you've pretty much talked it out.

I've suggested several times that by only having 3 or 4 active threads at a time, its basically impossible to keep "on topic".

But the time you hit page 22 of whatever topic, odds are, the conversation has shifted several times.

But...it's the same shit.  Nothing new, at all. It's the SAME conversation, with the same people, making the same points, and constructing the same arguments.

I understand all the above points, made from all the above posters (D-X's was just the last in the train)...but it's still reading the same exact things. It's BORING.

Sure...it's volume.   Sure, it's adding to the post/page count.  But...honestly...I'd rather silence.  JMHO.

I'm finding myself less and less interested in participating.  I lurked for a LONG time, again..because it got so monotonous and repetitive.  I've been back, lately...but, honestly....it's starting to feel that way again.

[jarmo]

Sounds like you are making a generalization as well.

Yes, I'm talking about a certain little group of people.
Yet you seem take everything I say personally.

I'm not talking about you. Maybe you're part of that group, I don't know.
It's a behavior I've noticed over time and it popped up here with the argument about objective posts.

But...it's the same shit.  Nothing new, at all. It's the SAME conversation, with the same people, making the same points, and constructing the same arguments.

Exactly.

And I think some of these people doing it, are either "newbies" or just plain ignorant.
When this board started, we added the Dead Hose section for this specific reason. A bunch of us had been on the old boards, we had discussed the name issue already, for example. New people join and they can't wait to talk about that same issue, to them it's fresh. Yet, for the rest of us, it's just like one long Festivus.

This kind of behavior has been repeated ever since.




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

But if your feeling is that if he sounds great, you say so, but if he sounds bad, you say nothing...that's where we come to a fork in the road.  He sounds how he sounds.  I just don't see the point in joining in a mass delusion that doesn't paint an accurate picture of the situation.  Who, exactly, am I fooling with that?

And therein lies the real heart of the issue.

You discount anything that falls outside what YOU think is an accurate picture (which may, or may not be) as a "mass delusion".  Rather than a different, and equally possible, or equally valid point of view.  Based on a different perception.

I thought by the time of the Vegas residency in June, he sounded good.  I said so.  Clips were posted and I lauded them.

But the shows in March were not good, as far as his vocals went.  And even if you want to tell me "good" is in the eye of the beholder, I would then challenge you to say with a straight face that you can stack up side by side a clip of Axl from Vegas in June and Axl in South America in March and say...yep, same thing.

There is no way that is the case.  At bare minimum, you have to concede they sound different.  If you want to try and sell that March was still good, that's your prerogative.  You can do what you wanna do.  But what you can't tell me is that they are the same.

[D-GenerationX]

You (and mortis) do the EXACT same thing.  I can't count the number of times I've been lumped into jarmo's point, by both of you, when I have, in fact, been making a different point, entirely. When it's been argued that "we" are making an argument. That "those with the rose colored glasses" just aren't seeing things clearly.

That's fair, I think.

[pilferk]

I thought by the time of the Vegas residency in June, he sounded good.  I said so.  Clips were posted and I lauded them.

But the shows in March were not good, as far as his vocals went.  And even if you want to tell me "good" is in the eye of the beholder, I would then challenge you to say with a straight face that you can stack up side by side a clip of Axl from Vegas in June and Axl in South America in March and say...yep, same thing.

There is no way that is the case.  At bare minimum, you have to concede they sound different.  If you want to try and sell that March was still good, that's your prerogative.  You can do what you wanna do.  But what you can't tell me is that they are the same.

You're trying to get specific. But, at the end of the day, you're reenforcing the case: If people don't share your opinion, they're "delusional".

The larger issue is...your general POV (and yes, I'm generalizing) is depicted in the statement I bolded.

I didn't tell you they were the same, or one was better...so, again...lumping. If "someone" did....fine and dandy. But your wording was "mass delusion".....

My point is that the bolded statement is, really, indicative of the heart of the issue, here.

[D-GenerationX]

I thought by the time of the Vegas residency in June, he sounded good.  I said so.  Clips were posted and I lauded them.

But the shows in March were not good, as far as his vocals went.  And even if you want to tell me "good" is in the eye of the beholder, I would then challenge you to say with a straight face that you can stack up side by side a clip of Axl from Vegas in June and Axl in South America in March and say...yep, same thing.

There is no way that is the case.  At bare minimum, you have to concede they sound different.  If you want to try and sell that March was still good, that's your prerogative.  You can do what you wanna do.  But what you can't tell me is that they are the same.

You're trying to get specific. But, at the end of the day, you're reenforcing the case: If people don't share your opinion, they're "delusional".

The larger issue is...your general POV (and yes, I'm generalizing) is depicted in the statement I bolded.

I didn't tell you they were the same, or one was better...so, again...lumping. If "someone" did....fine and dandy. But your wording was "mass delusion".....

My point is that the bolded statement is, really, indicative of the heart of the issue, here.

Great.

But I'm giving you a specific example and I'd like your feedback on it.

Am I off base viewing it that way, in your opinion?  Was there not a discernible difference there?

[pilferk]

Great.

But I'm giving you a specific example and I'd like your feedback on it.

Am I off base viewing it that way, in your opinion?

Sorry, I'm not interested in deflecting to a specific example, because it doesn't address the point I made.  I'm not here to play referee between you and whoever that specific person was.

However, I would say you're off base in projecting your aesthtic perception as being the only correct one and everyone else is delusional.

If you want to argue the wheretofore's and whys yours is the superior perception....have at it...with the person who objected.

I'm suggesting, though, that when the jumping off point is: If you all don't share my opinion, you're under the influence of a mass delusion....THATS a problem.  Because, really, it stalls any ACTUAL discussion.

[D-GenerationX]

Sorry, I'm not interested in deflecting to a specific example, because it doesn't address the point I made.  I'm not here to play referee between you and whoever that specific person was.

Well, that's lame.  All due respect.

I'm not asking you for a check or a blood donation.  It was a simple question.  Who gives a fuck who said what when about what.  I'm asking you, right now, and you are stonewalling.

I should tell you that the perception of ducking something like this in this manner sure looks like you not wanting to address an inconvenient point.  I'm sure you will deny that vehemently and treat me to another spiffy lecture, but if that's all you got, save yourself the typing and we'll just move on.

[Ginger King]

Great.

But I'm giving you a specific example and I'd like your feedback on it.

Am I off base viewing it that way, in your opinion?

Sorry, I'm not interested in deflecting to a specific example, because it doesn't address the point I made.  I'm not here to play referee between you and whoever that specific person was.

However, I would say you're off base in projecting your aesthtic perception as being the only correct one and everyone else is delusional.

If you want to argue the wheretofore's and whys yours is the superior perception....have at it...with the person who objected.

I'm suggesting, though, that when the jumping off point is: If you all don't share my opinion, you're under the influence of a mass delusion....THATS a problem.  Because, really, it stalls any ACTUAL discussion.

I don't think D-X is saying that his perception is the only correct one.   I think what he's saying is that there is a difference between the March shows and June shows.  The difference is clearly noticeable.

Now, I guess it's possible you can say that both performances were good (in your opinion) but that one was better.  I think he means (and I agree) that anyone who says there is no difference is being delusional (to use your word).

[pilferk]

Well, that's lame.  All due respect.

No, it's not lame.  It's a lack of interest. I just don't care about your previous spats. They don't have anything to do with me unless I was a participant.  I wasn't (and there was likely a reason for that).

I care more about the overarching point of view you tend to embody, so that's what I choose to talk about (and you're trying to derail, deflect or ignore), because we are so often at odds when it comes to POV. It effects me, so I find THAT interesting.  If you'd like to revive the discussion in question with the person who was involved..go for it!  But...a mass delusion involves a large group of folks...not just one.

I'm not asking you for a check or a blood donation.  It was a simple question.  Who gives a fuck who said what when about what.  I'm asking you, right now, and you are stonewalling.

I'm not stonewalling.  I just don't care.  It's not pertinent to the point I made.  It's you trying to derail, deflect, or wiggle out, of the fact you basically posted your general point of view and philosophy, which doesn't paint you in a very stellar light.  

Just own it. Or try to change it. Your choice.

I should tell you that the perception of ducking something like sure looks like you not wanting to address an inconvenient point.  I'm sure you will deny that vehemently and treat me to another spiffy lecture, but if that's all you got, save yourself the typing and we'll just move on.

No, it's you trying to set up something, anything, that might, through smoke and mirrors, look that way (maybe). It's you trying, very hard, to make ME look bad, to minimize the incredibly valid points being raised.  Honestly, it's tactics, not a genuine point.

It's also not a point I have an opinion on because it involves a very specific conversation that I wasn't any part of, at any point. I don't even think I recall it. It's not an "inconvenient point", it's an irrelevant one.  

Because most every post you make, and every discussion you enter into, upholds the philosophy/pov I'm pointing out. It's right there, in your own words, bolded for all to see.  And I suspect the view when the mirror is getting held up is making you a bit uncomfortable, so you're trying to find an "out". You're trying to deflect, or create some construct, that justifies you to discount every opposing viewpoint, in ever situation.  Or to create a specific situation (after the fact) that might loosely justify the words you wrote.  And maybe you'll even convince some folks that's all it was.  But....there's too much evidence to the contrary.  Reading that line, honestly, flipped the switch and lit up the lightbulb for me.  I get it,now.

I, likewise, get that you might not like "the lecture", but you've been pretty involved in telling everyone else listening the ins and outs of how to treat the "opposition".  I'm just pointing out....those in glass houses and all that.   You laid out, for all to see, just what you think of those you view as YOUR opposition, and thier opinions/POV.  

[pilferk]

I don't think D-X is saying that his perception is the only correct one.   I think what he's saying is that there is a difference between the March shows and June shows.  The difference is clearly noticeable.

Now, I guess it's possible you can say that both performances were good (in your opinion) but that one was better.  I think he means (and I agree) that anyone who says there is no difference is being delusional (to use your word).

He used it as an example, to bolster a larger point.

An example is meant to represent a larger number of similar things.

I don't care, one whit, how he ACTUALLY felt, in terms of the samples. It's not relevant.  It's use as example is the important part.

But, used as an example, with the closing that essentially says "If you don't agree with me, you're suffering from a mass delusion"....would seem to indicate that's how he views most of the encounters he's using the example to represent. No?

[D-GenerationX]

I don't think D-X is saying that his perception is the only correct one.   I think what he's saying is that there is a difference between the March shows and June shows.  The difference is clearly noticeable.

Now, I guess it's possible you can say that both performances were good (in your opinion) but that one was better.  I think he means (and I agree) that anyone who says there is no difference is being delusional (to use your word).

Yeah, basically.

He introduced the point that he takes exception to my use of the term "mass delusion".  And the first example off the top of my head, was those 2 sets of shows.

In my opinion, saying the March shows sounded good was untrue, as I do not feel he sounded good.  And I see no value in saying something I don't believe.  Certainly not under the flimsy rationale that its somehow my duty as a fan to do so.  As I said in that earlier post, who am I fooling with that?

And then, to throw him a bone, I said even if you want to say one person's good might be different from another (a legit point) I then introduced the contrast between the two, which is not subjective at all.  They sound very different.