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

[D-GenerationX]

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.

No, I'm acknowledging both points as valid.

If I had to guess, I would wager you'd prefer I talked about how cool it was they got the slot...and then just not said anything about the quality of performance.

Why not just be honest? 

[FunkyMonkey]

Duff McKagan on the reunion with Axl Rose in the chapter Let Go Of Resentments Volume 2.  Duff on the art of letting go...

Resentment is like yourself taking poison. And hoping the other person gets hurt from it. Resentment is killing you. It's eating you up.

@1:17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwxBCWVAViM

[D-GenerationX]

Duff McKagan on the reunion with Axl Rose in the chapter Let Go Of Resentments Volume 2.  Duff on the art of letting go...

Resentment is like yourself taking poison. And hoping the other person gets hurt from it. Resentment is killing you. It's eating you up.

@1:17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwxBCWVAViM

Wise words.

[jarmo]

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.

I asked what you're hoping to achieve with it all and you just said you want to discuss things. I pointed out that it was kinda obvious considering we're on a message board.
I explained it further.

So the question remains, why are you interested in discussions? What does partaking in them do to you? What do you, or hope to, get out of it all?
I'm honestly asking because I've seen you ignore plenty of discussions over the past months.

No, I'm acknowledging both points as valid.

If I had to guess, I would wager you'd prefer I talked about how cool it was they got the slot...and then just not said anything about the quality of performance.

Why not just be honest? 

It's not less honest because you choose to remember the coolness of it. Even though the performance wasn't the best ever.
You don't always have to be Debbie Downer...

I don't even have to guess that some seem to have to always follow something nice with "but...." in order to appear "objective". Can't say something nice without a "but...".



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

So the question remains, why are you interested in discussions? What does partaking in them do to you? What do you, or hope to, get out of it all?
I'm honestly asking because I've seen you ignore plenty of discussions over the past months.

Nothing, really. 

I don't think there is some big life revelation coming at the end of any of these threads or anything.  We are talking about a rock band on the internet.  We're not exactly solving the world's problems over here.

Since Axl is my favorite artist ever, I am interested to talk to fellow fans who also see him in the same way.  Just as I would want to talk University of Florida Gators football with fellow Gators fans.  Or talk about a certain TV show with fans of that show.  We all share a common interest, and only we are big enough fans to spend so much time thinking about those subjects in any sort of detail.

[Bridge]

No, I'm acknowledging both points as valid.

If I had to guess, I would wager you'd prefer I talked about how cool it was they got the slot...and then just not said anything about the quality of performance.

I personally would say they're just two sides of the same coin (performance).  I would describe the entire event using both of those perspectives.  Here is what I'd say about the 2002 VMAS....

I remember the scuttlebutt surrounding the event.... would Axl show or not?  If you recall, Pink blew it early in the show and mentioned Axl was there ("I just saw Buckethead!  Is he here with Axl?").  That only whetted my appetite (pardon the pun) to see what was going to happen.  Jimmy Fallon comes onstage and yammers something about how this band not only showed up, but is taking your requests.  (Huh?!)  GUNS N FUCKING ROSES!!!

The curtain went up.  Axl was dimly lit, but the intense look on his face was unmistakable.  His teeth gritted as he began the pre-Jungle scream.  And I have to say, as he opened his mouth to wail, it was the most exciting, hair-raising scream I had ever heard from Axl.  He really opened up his lungs and let it rip!

Then the song started.  Axl almost immediately started fucking with his ear monitor.  Then he started running around the stage.  He blew himself up badly and was out of breath for the remainder of an abbreviated three song medley.  The crowd seemed to be into it however, largely due to the surprise factor.

Was it exciting?  Hell yes, probably the most exciting thing that happened on that show in years (and possibly since).  Was that exciting appearance Axl's best performance?  Far from it.  But in the end, it served as an announcement that, indeed, Axl was back.  The staff was certainly buzzing about it on TV after the show, and Axl was briefly interviewed.

So for me, it wasn't one or the other.  It was all those things combined.

I could live with that -- until the 2007 VMAs where Axl appeared to present the Killers, then was briefly interviewed and asked about the 2002 performance.  Axl used the word "catastrophe".  He went on to explain that the *band* wasn't ready for such a performance and that's why it didn't go well.  I remember thinking then (as I do now) that Axl didn't do much to contradict that notorious stigma he carries about blaming other people and assuming no responsibility himself.

Everybody has an off night.  Being on TV may have frazzled Axl's nerves that night.  I can accept that.  What bothered me much more was Axl later heaping the responsibility on the band for the off performance, when truthfully, the band did just fine.

[jarmo]

Nothing, really. 

I don't think there is some big life revelation coming at the end of any of these threads or anything.  We are talking about a rock band on the internet.  We're not exactly solving the world's problems over here.

Nothing? Wow. Not even attention? 

And then the attempt at ridicule. Nobody said we were solving anything other than asking you what you're hoping to get out of the discussions. And your answer is "nothing".
If that really is the case, there must be something else that can give you something...




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

It's not less honest because you choose to remember the coolness of it. Even though the performance wasn't the best ever.
You don't always have to be Debbie Downer...

Well, I can't recall too many other examples of a live performance (from anyone) where we didn't talk about how it sounded.

Furthermore, I don't even think this is a discussion if the performance was a homerun.  I have a hard time seeing you have this same fire to gloss over if it was awesome.  If he went out there and killed it, I can't really envision a scenario where that would not be the focus.

If it was off the charts good, would you really be here saying how it doesn't matter how it sounded, what's more important was that they were asked in the first place?  I dispute that, highly.

[D-GenerationX]

Nothing? Wow. Not even attention? 

And then the attempt at ridicule. Nobody said we were solving anything other than asking you what you're hoping to get out of the discussions. And your answer is "nothing".
If that really is the case, there must be something else that can give you something...

They are just discussions, dude.  Talking about a common interest.  And I gave several examples that would all apply.  I'm not sure what you are going for here, to be honest.

The attention thing, that seems to be your big theory, I know.  Though I'd be remiss not to point out for a guy that thinks I'm obsessed with attention, you would have to be my best friend on that front, no?  Did you ever take a sec and wonder if the rather laser like focus you tend to have on me is helping or hurting in that regard?

When people see that you are the last post in the thread, if asked, what do you figure the percentage of people are that would assume before clicking you are responding to something I posted?

I guess if I were a guy that claimed simultaneously that I didn't think a poster brought much to the table, and at the same time gets off on the attention, I can't say my solution to either dilemma would be to follow the guy around like a puppy dog and keep him at the top of every thread.

[FunkyMonkey]

From another interview with Duff.

On Guns N' Roses:

"We were a tough band, a bunch of tough guys, and we would make fun of other bands, like we're never gonna fall into that thing or fall into that. What a joke. We fell into every single trapping, and we just didn't see it coming," says McKagan.

The reconciliation with lead singer Axl Rose came last spring.

"I'm glad I did it - we talked, and all that kind of stuff that sits somewhere in the middle of your chest is just gone," McKagan adds.

Video: http://7online.com/entertainment/a-new-chapter-for-guns-n-roses-bassist-duff-mckagan/727916/

[D-GenerationX]

The reconciliation with lead singer Axl Rose came last spring.

"I'm glad I did it - we talked, and all that kind of stuff that sits somewhere in the middle of your chest is just gone," McKagan adds.

Which is great, I think.  They seemed to truly have fun onstage last year.  It was cool to see.

[jarmo]

Furthermore, I don't even think this is a discussion if the performance was a homerun.  I have a hard time seeing you have this same fire to gloss over if it was awesome.  If he went out there and killed it, I can't really envision a scenario where that would not be the focus.

Remember those shows where Axl sounded "too good" and people were posting on the Internet that he was lip syncing?

They are just discussions, dude.  Talking about a common interest.  And I gave several examples that would all apply.  I'm not sure what you are going for here, to be honest.

Just trying to understand what motivates you. It's not easy getting answers out of you, you do like to dance.

The attention thing, that seems to be your big theory, I know.  Though I'd be remiss not to point out for a guy that thinks I'm obsessed with attention, you would have to be my best friend on that front, no?  Did you ever take a sec and wonder if the rather laser like focus you tend to have on me is helping or hurting in that regard?

Do I care?
Well, the irony is that I saw a post asking you about this exact thing earlier...

And we got the  complaints about moving stuff to different sections where they won't get the attention... So yeah, there's a suspicion there that attention might be a motivator.



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Furthermore, I don't even think this is a discussion if the performance was a homerun.  I have a hard time seeing you have this same fire to gloss over if it was awesome.  If he went out there and killed it, I can't really envision a scenario where that would not be the focus.

Remember those shows where Axl sounded "too good" and people were posting on the Internet that he was lip syncing?

Honestly, no.

The do recall people arguing pretty hardcore that some of the backing vocals when they do 'Madagascar' live are pre-recorded tracks.  But I did not agree.

[jarmo]

Well it happened....
So I imagine if there's nothing else to "worry" about, even good can be too good! 



/jarmo

[mortismurphy]

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.

Alright, alright, let's for the sake of argument assume you are correct, which you are not, but let's assume for sake of argument. Let's assume you are right in that 'I only look for negative things to talk about'. Then neither of us are objective as you continuously correct Axl mishaps in order to conform to a positive image of the guy. No human being can be, and expected to be, flawless yet that is the image you put forth of Axl! Axl cannot even have a bad gig; the poor guy is not even allowed, according to Jarmo logic, ''to have a bad day at the office'' for crying out loud, like the rest of humanity, as all those phones tell lies!!

Assuming you are correct about me, then you are also not objective and a thoroughly biased witness also.
 

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?

And may I direct you back to my football analogy. As I have said many times, it does not work like that. You do not simply check out when the band does something you do not like.

[jarmo]

Alright, alright, let's for the sake of argument assume you are correct, which you are not, but let's assume for sake of argument. Let's assume you are right in that 'I only look for negative things to talk about'. Then neither of us are objective as you continuously correct Axl mishaps in order to conform to a positive image of the guy. No human being can be, and expected to be, flawless yet that is the image you put forth of Axl! Axl cannot even have a bad gig; the poor guy is not even allowed, according to Jarmo logic, ''to have a bad day at the office'' for crying out loud, like the rest of humanity, as all those phones tell lies!!

I never claimed, nor did I set out to be "objective"!
I run a fucking fan site. I'm sure there's a fucking clue in there somewhere.

Calling me biased isn't gonna insult me. I honestly don't care!
It's GN'R, my favorite band.

Regarding all your other nonsense. Whatever you say.
The difference is that every day is a bad day to you. You choose to focus on in it. You have to be ASKED to say something positive.

Assuming you are correct about me, then you are also not objective and a thoroughly biased witness also.

Never claimed to be. And I would never go to a fan site to look for objectivity.
Like I've said, you're in the wrong fucking place. 

And may I direct you back to my football analogy. As I have said many times, it does not work like that. You do not simply check out when the band does something you do not like.

Well, you can. People change.

Sorry for the fucking language.




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

And may I direct you back to my football analogy. As I have said many times, it does not work like that. You do not simply check out when the band does something you do not like.

 

Yeah, but what about in the case of bad ownership?  If you don't believe in the ownership, its hard to support the team.

To me, that's the only time you can check out of a team.  Be it a case of not spending money, not hiring the right people, and not really trying to compete at the highest level.  Just happy to be there.

That's not good.

[mortismurphy]

Alright, alright, let's for the sake of argument assume you are correct, which you are not, but let's assume for sake of argument. Let's assume you are right in that 'I only look for negative things to talk about'. Then neither of us are objective as you continuously correct Axl mishaps in order to conform to a positive image of the guy. No human being can be, and expected to be, flawless yet that is the image you put forth of Axl! Axl cannot even have a bad gig; the poor guy is not even allowed, according to Jarmo logic, ''to have a bad day at the office'' for crying out loud, like the rest of humanity, as all those phones tell lies!!

I never claimed, nor did I set out to be "objective"!
I run a fucking fan site. I'm sure there's a fucking clue in there somewhere.

Calling me biased isn't gonna insult me. I honestly don't care!
It's GN'R, my favorite band.

Regarding all your other nonsense. Whatever you say.
The difference is that every day is a bad day to you. You choose to focus on in it. You have to be ASKED to say something positive.

Assuming you are correct about me, then you are also not objective and a thoroughly biased witness also.

Never claimed to be. And I would never go to a fan site to look for objectivity.
Like I've said, you're in the wrong fucking place. 

And may I direct you back to my football analogy. As I have said many times, it does not work like that. You do not simply check out when the band does something you do not like.

Well, you can. People change.

Sorry for the fucking language.




/jarmo

I think I will give that reply a wide berth!

And may I direct you back to my football analogy. As I have said many times, it does not work like that. You do not simply check out when the band does something you do not like.

 

Yeah, but what about in the case of bad ownership?  If you don't believe in the ownership, its hard to support the team.

To me, that's the only time you can check out of a team.  Be it a case of not spending money, not hiring the right people, and not really trying to compete at the highest level.  Just happy to be there.

That's not good.

That does not really happen here. Where I live, regionalism is rampant, regional ties and tradition (sometimes even religious sectarianism as in the case of the two Glasgow clubs, Celtic and Rangers). You live in that region, you support that team, even if you hate the management, ownership and players. I suppose the closest example of what you say is the case of Manchester United. Certain Man U fans rejected to two American millionaires, the Glazer twins, owning their club. They voiced their concerns by repudiating the Man U colours of red and white and adorning the colours of an earlier incarnation of Manchester United called Newton Heath. But you can see what they did here? They repudiated Man U's foreign takeover by identifying themselves with Man U's tradition. They also wore the Newton Heath colours while still buying tickets for Old Trafford and supporting Man U. They did not turn away from the turnstiles, nor select another club. They merely refused to line the Glazer's pockets with t-shirt sales.

American sports are different because they operate on a franchise system. I know teams can shift regions which is a concept totally alien to Europe.

[jarmo]

Suspected as much.

You go to a fan site for objectivity! That's hilarious!
And, you think of yourself as objective. Even better.



/jarmo

[mortismurphy]

I never claimed, nor did I set out to be "objective"!
I run a fucking fan site. I'm sure there's a fucking clue in there somewhere.

Calling me biased isn't gonna insult me. I honestly don't care!
It's GN'R, my favorite band.

Never claimed to be. And I would never go to a fan site to look for objectivity.
Like I've said, you're in the wrong fucking place. 

Suspected as much.

You go to a fan site for objectivity! That's hilarious!
And, you think of yourself as objective. Even better.

I do not agree with you on the slightest. Yes, there is more than an element of subjectivity if you are aficionado of a particular thing, but that should not necessitate losing you objective faculties. If your sports team are pummeled by opposition you do not say to yourself, ''yes, we were great . Let's all be positive and live in a positive bubble''.  You say, ''we were garbage, our players were crap, our manager's tactics errant and the opposition, far superior.'' You might also end on a positive, with ''we have time to put our tactics in order for the next match. Hopefully we will do better'', but at no point has your objective reasoning completely deserted you. Applying this to rock bands and using the Stones example, yes, you might consider The Stones ''the greatest rock n' roll band ever'' (there is your subjective element, Jarmo) but this does not blind you to the fact that Dirty Work is complete and utter horse manure (the objective element).

There is an eternal barometer of objectivity, even within fandom itself. Trekkies have their favourite episodes, and their not so favourite. Fans of movie serials will point you in the direction of the good (Godfather I & II), and the not so good (Godfather III). Fans of comic books will tell you their favourite 'run', when a particular creative team was working on the comic. And fans of sports teams will select the best eras, managers and players, and the not so great. At no point has fandom turned them into, how you operate, what you advocate, which is a sort of 'na na prozac land' of unreality and blindness.

I will actually try and apply the same argument to Guns, using The Spaghetti Incident example. Now I am not saying that album is complete garbage - well, yes I am haha - but can Guns fans be so biased as to declaim it in absolute positive glowing terms. At best, it is flawed work. I have never heard many accolades by GN'R fans of TSI but I suspect HTGTH is going to prove me wrong here!