Slash says "never say never" over return to classic-era GN'R lineup

[D-GenerationX]

Correct the record. Is that a problem? Why is it such an "issue" that a fan site would take the band's site instead of the rest of the world's? That part is a bit unclear to me.
I don't go to the home team's end if I support the away team.

Why does it seem to bother you that people who like the band would actually defend the band?

I think it becomes a problem if you (not you, specifically, but anyone) are so hypersensitive that your treat everything a straight up declaration of war and not just an observation.  And will bend over as backwards as can be to try and put a good spin on something that wasn't good, and in truth, is really a minor occurrence and not something to go to the mattresses over.

Quick example would be, say, the MTV VMAs in 2002.  Sort of a mess.  Even Axl himself later called it a debacle or something similar.  That's just how that night went.  Doesn't mean you like the band any less.  It just means that particular performance was not so hot.

So should the topic come up, I don't see a need to pretend it was good.  Not even on "a fan site".  And I'm not sure who we are fooling pretending it was good.  We all saw it and we all have ears.

It also possible to have an unexpressed thought.  Not everything you see or read that you disagree with needs to be a knock down drag out.  I see stuff I disagree with all the time.  I'm not going to rant and rave about every little thing though.  You go crazy that way.

[mortismurphy]

It's not working for you.
Doesn't mean it's true for everybody else.

Well it cannot be working for too many others either! You yourself only reply in order to defend perceived slights against Axl. This act always creates another lengthy argument. Then there is another poster who is on your side of the debate, who I will not name, who merely re-pastes the same ''you are a whiney toxic moron'' post. Nice and 'positive' it all is. Then you have the people in the middle who are lethargic and rarely post. Then the so called 'whiners'. That does not leave many others! Again, where are your puppy dogs and rainbows?

And before you start doing the whole heavy-handed ''my site, my rules'' straw man stuff, this is merely an observation.

I know your definition of a fan is basically somebody who enjoys the music and likes to whine about shit they didn't get.

No it isn't. This would not even apply to most of the bands I like. The Stones, another band I like, had a flawless career until the mid 70s. Since then there have been many turds, with a few gems glittering. Does not make me any less interested or any less a fan. 

So I asked him if he thought his whining would have any effect on the band. No answer on that one.

I cannot even remember you asking me that but my answer to that would be, no. If I was in their shoes I would take it as water off a duck's back. They were all fans of bands once, Ron and Kiss, Axl and Queen. I am sure they had criticisms of their favourite bands also. As I said, this is how normal rock fans act.

I am not  lethargic at all......

And I am huge Stones fan as well.  I do not agree with your description of there discovery however.  The Stones in the early mid 90s where very, very, very good.  I saw them live twice.  Voodoo Lounge is a very good album.  The shows they put on where great.    Its what guns should of been after years of nothing, with the release of CD

I saw them live in the late '90s and like Voodoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon. But do you really think the Stones have ever quite re-captured that genius they possessed between, about 1968-72? In bits maybe (Some Girls, Tattoo You). Also I did not really mean, that particular period. I meant the 1980s period. Undercover and Dirty Work are two dreary sets of music. I have never seen too many Stones fans argue otherwise.

I would actually say The Stones are better 1989-present day, than they were, 1978-1987 (Tattoo You aside).

[D-GenerationX]

I would actually say The Stones are better 1989-present day, than they were, 1978-1987 (Tattoo You aside).

Same here.  And the live shows are most certainly better.

[mortismurphy]

It's working quite well thank you.
I'm glad you know what I only reply to. Shows how much you know.

The difference is, I'm constructive. You're not.

I would call you, corrective. You are the great corrector, fastidiously fixing Axl's image.

I hope you use all your free time to focus on those turds as you put it.
So you don't seem too much of a fan!

I will go further than that. In my record player, I constantly play Exile, Sticky Fingers and Beggars Banquet, and almost never, Emotional Rescue, Dirty Work and Undercover. And If anyone wants to discuss Mick Taylor era Stones, I am your man.

The question is, do they focus on it or do they focus on what they like.....
With you, it's easy to tell what you've chosen to spend your free time on. Whine.

I do not choose to focus on anything in life in the way you describe. I do not have an individual voice in my head which goes, ''is this positive or negative - if the latter, ignore?''. I react to the good and bad. This applies to, just about everything. If something interesting enough to me is bad, then I will be amiable enough to discuss it.

[mortismurphy]

I would actually say The Stones are better 1989-present day, than they were, 1978-1987 (Tattoo You aside).

Same here.  And the live shows are most certainly better.

Better than, seeing Jagger in Lycra and a headband?

[TheBaconman]

I would actually say The Stones are better 1989-present day, than they were, 1978-1987 (Tattoo You aside).

Same here.  And the live shows are most certainly better.

I agreee

[D-GenerationX]

Better than, seeing Jagger in Lycra and a headband?

Hahahaha

You do seem more down on 'Undercover' than I though.  I think its the best offering from that decade.  Not a super high bar, obviously.

[mortismurphy]

The Stones were abused by 1980s production. No band sounds worse with a drum machine than the Rolling Stones.

[LongGoneDay]

In my opinion, the Stones with Mick Taylor were the greatest rock band of all time.
When Taylor left, they became ordinary. Still great live, and Jagger?s voice still sounds good today, but to me, they died creatively when Taylor left.
Some Girls is Wood-era Stones at their peak, but not an essential Stones record.
Tattoo You had some bright spots, mainly because they were working with old Taylor era material. Plundered My Soul is great.
You win again cover on Some Girls's B-Sides is great too.

If we can't have Axl/Slash and Jagger/Taylor like they were meant to be, maybe Axl/Taylor and Jagger/Slash would work.

[D-GenerationX]

The Stones were abused by 1980s production. No band sounds worse with a drum machine than the Rolling Stones.

Not a 'Too Much Blood' guy, mortis?

[mortismurphy]

In my opinion, the Stones with Mick Taylor were the greatest rock band of all time.
When Taylor left, they became ordinary. Still great live, and Jagger?s voice still sounds good today, but to me, they died creatively when Taylor left.
Some Girls is Wood-era Stones at their peak, but not an essential Stones record.
Tattoo You had some bright spots, mainly because they were working with old Taylor era material. Plundered My Soul is great.
You win again cover on Some Girls's B-Sides is great too.

If we can't have Axl/Slash and Jagger/Taylor like they were meant to be, maybe Axl/Taylor and Jagger/Slash would work.

I completely agree. Wood was basically a Richards-alike who was brought in to be just that and play interchangeable bar room honky tonk. Also, he got on with Richards. Taylor had what you might call an 'un-Stonesy' sound, a lot more free flowing, lyrical and jazzy, a bit Hendrixy in some ways, which added a different dimension to their sound. He elevated the band to their absolute pinnacle. He got belittled in the songwriting contributions by Mick also. Sway, Moonlight Mile and Winter are all his contributions. They are all bloody marvelous.

[D-GenerationX]

Keith has been joking for 40 years that he's still waiting on all the great stuff Mick Taylor was going to do once he got away from the Stones.

[jarmo]

I think it becomes a problem if you (not you, specifically, but anyone) are so hypersensitive that your treat everything a straight up declaration of war and not just an observation.  And will bend over as backwards as can be to try and put a good spin on something that wasn't good, and in truth, is really a minor occurrence and not something to go to the mattresses over.

If that's the case, why is that a problem?
Are you saying you have a problem with differing opinions and points of view? 

Quick example would be, say, the MTV VMAs in 2002.  Sort of a mess.  Even Axl himself later called it a debacle or something similar.  That's just how that night went.  Doesn't mean you like the band any less.  It just means that particular performance was not so hot.

So should the topic come up, I don't see a need to pretend it was good.  Not even on "a fan site".  And I'm not sure who we are fooling pretending it was good.  We all saw it and we all have ears.

Is it possible it was great to see a surprise at the VMAs that involved GN'R? Is it possible it was great to see GN'R on MTV?
Is it possible that knowing what you know, the performance wasn't as bad as some claim?

Like a "well, considering...... it was pretty fucking cool" kind of deal. Is that possible?


Also, is it possible to get an answer to the questions I asked instead of skipping them? If we're telling people we're here for the discussion, I'm assuming you wanna discuss things that aren't chit chat about the Stones. Yet when you're given a chance to discuss, you run away.

Why does this happen with you so often and time after time you tell us how you want discussions? I don't get it.

I would call you, corrective. You are the great corrector, fastidiously fixing Axl's image.

Not really.
I have a different point of view. That's all.

I do not choose to focus on anything in life in the way you describe. I do not have an individual voice in my head which goes, ''is this positive or negative - if the latter, ignore?''. I react to the good and bad. This applies to, just about everything. If something interesting enough to me is bad, then I will be amiable enough to discuss it.

Like I said, maybe you should take a look at what you're doing. When the bad outweighs the good... Maybe take a break. What's the harm?



/jarmo

[FunkyMonkey]

Slash's 5 Secrets To Success

Patience
Perseverance
Integrity
Passion
And a little bit of talent doesn't hurt

How is Slash as a boss: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XBUOopMF0Q

[D-GenerationX]

I think it becomes a problem if you (not you, specifically, but anyone) are so hypersensitive that your treat everything a straight up declaration of war and not just an observation.  And will bend over as backwards as can be to try and put a good spin on something that wasn't good, and in truth, is really a minor occurrence and not something to go to the mattresses over.

If that's the case, why is that a problem?
Are you saying you have a problem with differing opinions and points of view? 

Not at all. 

But I am saying if you spend all the live long day picking fights with the same handful people over every single thing they say, you are going to find yourself in a lot of fights.  If it is the only way you can communicate with a certain person, its all the same sort of interaction you will ever have.

You also run of the risk of the becoming the Boy That Cried Outrage.  If everything is treated as a declaration of war and this grave insult to the band, the impact diminishes.  The taking issue with what is said loses its bite when you quite literally take issue with every single thing the person you don't like says.  Makes it easier to dismiss.

Pick your spots, I guess is how I'd put it.

[D-GenerationX]

Quick example would be, say, the MTV VMAs in 2002.  Sort of a mess.  Even Axl himself later called it a debacle or something similar.  That's just how that night went.  Doesn't mean you like the band any less.  It just means that particular performance was not so hot.

So should the topic come up, I don't see a need to pretend it was good.  Not even on "a fan site".  And I'm not sure who we are fooling pretending it was good.  We all saw it and we all have ears.

Is it possible it was great to see a surprise at the VMAs that involved GN'R? Is it possible it was great to see GN'R on MTV?
Is it possible that knowing what you know, the performance wasn't as bad as some claim?

Like a "well, considering...... it was pretty fucking cool" kind of deal. Is that possible?

I think it was cool that they were given the closing slot after being out of the public eye for almost a decade, and coming back with a line-up no one knew.  That part was cool.

However, the performance itself was pretty shabby.  Axl was not in good voice and the reaction afterwards had a definite air of "what the hell was that?" to it.

I don't see why one cannot hold both opinions.  Both views are accurate, I would say.

[D-GenerationX]

Also, is it possible to get an answer to the questions I asked instead of skipping them? If we're telling people we're here for the discussion, I'm assuming you wanna discuss things that aren't chit chat about the Stones. Yet when you're given a chance to discuss, you run away.

Why does this happen with you so often and time after time you tell us how you want discussions? I don't get it.

Anything in particular you feel didn't get its due?

[jarmo]

Really, it takes three posts to reply to one?

Anything in particular you feel didn't get its due?

Well I'm trying to get to the bottom of the whole discussion thing.
It's obvious people come here to discuss. That's kinda the whole idea behind a message board...

I think it was cool that they were given the closing slot after being out of the public eye for almost a decade, and coming back with a line-up no one knew.  That part was cool.

However, the performance itself was pretty shabby.  Axl was not in good voice and the reaction afterwards had a definite air of "what the hell was that?" to it.

I don't see why one cannot hold both opinions.  Both views are accurate, I would say.

Yeah, but the difference is what you choose to focus on. What it wasn't, or what it was.

Pick your spots, I guess is how I'd put it.

Well, personally speaking I only respond to things where I got something to add.
If it means telling somebody they have their story wrong, or telling somebody things aren't always as simple as they claim it is, then so be it.

You see, some actually enjoy learning new things. You present them with information and/or a different point of view and they see what you're saying.
Not everybody thinks they're always right and never can be wrong.




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Really, it takes three posts to reply to one?

Easier to read.

Some of those marathon ransom note replies you do are tough on the eyes.  And hell to read on a phone, believe me.

Also better to address points specifically so nothing gets lost in the shuffle.

[D-GenerationX]

Anything in particular you feel didn't get its due?

Well I'm trying to get to the bottom of the whole discussion thing.
It's obvious people come here to discuss. That's kinda the whole idea behind a message board...

And I'd agree.

So what is your particular beef about the matter, or some aspect you felt I glossed over?

I'm trying to accommodate here.