ARTICLE: My thoughts on the future of Guns N' Roses

[jarmo]

I already explained it.

Instead of spinning what I said, just re-read it. Slowly. Hopefully you'll understand it, eventually.



/jarmo

[mortismurphy]

I already explained it.

Instead of spinning what I said, just re-read it. Slowly. Hopefully you'll understand it, eventually.



/jarmo

Alright, let's go through your statement then,

Of course you can't understand the simple concept that I've explained to you multiple times that a fan site is aimed at fans. Not people who love Appetite.

Firstly, why are they ('GN'R fans' and ''people who love Appetite'') exclusive of one and another? I think I can safely say that most GN'R fans are also fans of Appetite. I also wouldn't be surprised if Appetite for Destruction was the preferred album if you polled enough members of the GN'R fanbase. At no point then am I at odds with a sizable portion of the GN'R fanbase by preferring Appetite, despite your best efforts to label me as such. Secondly, why have you suddenly concluded that I am solely a fan of Appetite and not the remainder of Guns N' Roses' discography? To prefer one album does not mean you are not a fan of the other albums! A preference for Sticky Fingers by a Stones' fan does not mean he/she dislikes Exile or Beggars Banquet!

[TheBaconman]

I already explained it.

Instead of spinning what I said, just re-read it. Slowly. Hopefully you'll understand it, eventually.



/jarmo

Alright, let's go through your statement then,

Of course you can't understand the simple concept that I've explained to you multiple times that a fan site is aimed at fans. Not people who love Appetite.

Firstly, why are they ('GN'R fans' and ''people who love Appetite'') exclusive of one and another? I think I can safely say that most GN'R fans are also fans of Appetite. I also wouldn't be surprised if Appetite for Destruction was the preferred album if you polled enough members of the GN'R fanbase. At no point then am I at odds with a sizable portion of the GN'R fanbase by preferring Appetite, despite your best efforts to label me as such. Secondly, why have you suddenly concluded that I am solely a fan of Appetite and not the remainder of Guns N' Roses' discography? To prefer one album does not mean you are not a fan of the other albums! A preference for Sticky Fingers by a Stones' fan does not mean he/she dislikes Exile or Beggars Banquet!

My favourite period of guns was 2002.  Mb I should be in the dead horse section as well

I do think any fan can have a favorite period of this band and still be a BIG/HUGE fan of the band overall

Not every fan has to like every moment for what itmis.  I don't think everyone's in the bands past is special.   I don't think every time frame brings us something different/special/or unpredictable

Can anyone honestly say 2015 has been a good year for the band?   This is one time period I am looking forward to forgetting

[jarmo]

Alright, let's go through your statement then,

Of course you can't understand the simple concept that I've explained to you multiple times that a fan site is aimed at fans. Not people who love Appetite.

Firstly, why are they ('GN'R fans' and ''people who love Appetite'') exclusive of one and another? I think I can safely say that most GN'R fans are also fans of Appetite. I also wouldn't be surprised if Appetite for Destruction was the preferred album if you polled enough members of the GN'R fanbase. At no point then am I at odds with a sizable portion of the GN'R fanbase by preferring Appetite, despite your best efforts to label me as such. Secondly, why have you suddenly concluded that I am solely a fan of Appetite and not the remainder of Guns N' Roses' discography? To prefer one album does not mean you are not a fan of the other albums! A preference for Sticky Fingers by a Stones' fan does not mean he/she dislikes Exile or Beggars Banquet!

You don't understand the part in the post following where I explained for you that there are general rock fans who love said album but they wouldn't label themselves GN'R fans, and definitely not visit fan sites to whine about the band.

Which part is unclear? 

GN'R fans (who might even love AFD).
People who love AFD.

This site is for the first group of people.

I'm sure you're just having a piss here. Since you constantly point out how smart you are.....

We've already established that you don't exactly exemplify the kind of GN'R fan that this site is aimed for. There's no need for you to apologize for this.
You just happen to be pretty negative and all your hope is invested in an album, that you may or may not enjoy, but you need to hear.


Why are you here?



/jarmo

[mortismurphy]

You don't understand the part in the post following where I explained for you that there are general rock fans who love said album but they wouldn't label themselves GN'R fans, and definitely not visit fan sites to whine about the band.

Which part is unclear? 

That is true but it is a moot point since it was established early on that I was a bigger fan than that (for reasons I am certainly not going to list for you). I have bands like that myself, where I like one or two albums and might even see them live but do not have the interest to visit their fan sites.

an album, that you may or may not enjoy.

Isn't that the same for every eagerly expected album? Also I do not 'need' to hear it.

[jarmo]

Isn't that the same for every eagerly expected album? Also I do not 'need' to hear it.

Well you gave the impression that you're all about the quantity of material, so it seems like you need it in order to possibly feel some kind of positive emotions relating to GN'R, in the future.




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

I think it is unfair to compare Motely and GNR here.  The version of Motley currently touring has all the "popular" (whatever term you want to use) members.  I am not slagging the current line-up of Guns.  I think they are super talented, the shows have been great, they are all really nice, etc.  But are you really telling me that if Axl, Slash, Izzy, Duff and Steven (or even the UYI lineup for that matter) toured the US they wouldn't be able to sell out stadiums/arenas?  Please. 

Agreed.  I don't know about stadiums, but suggesting the real band could not sell out arenas is pretty laughable.

Honestly, I can only think of one reason we see pushback on that idea.  It's because the current band doesn't have a hope in hell of doing that.  And if you don't want to deal with that reality, you start setting up situations as if no one could ever possibly do that.  Like is fucking mission impossible.

U2 is playing 4-6 nights in arenas in the same city.  But the classic line-up of GNR can't even do one?  Get real.

[jarmo]

Motley Crue was brought up for one single reason. They are touring now. They are on their last tour so to compare them to GN'R is pointless.

But, we've had certain people time and time again point out how there's no demand for GN'R.

I disagree. I've explained why I disagree. I've brought up several points that gives a picture of the USA as a touring market for hard rock / metal bands. All of this has been ignored and the "there's no demand for GN'R" routine is just repeated. By people claiming to be interested in discussions.

So once again, several hard rock bands tour in the summer, different packages and do good business. Sometimes it's "the last tour" or "playing the same show you saw in the 80s" tour.

GN'R played an arena tour in October-December, followed early the following year by smaller shows. Then being asked to headline festivals and doing a residency twice, and this is used as evidence of there not being a demand for GN'R.

Festivals don't book headliners because they wanna be nice. The Joint doesn't book two residencies so they can not sell tickets.


But it goes along with the mentality that something is always wrong that certain people seem to possess. Unfortunately.
 


/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

But, we've had certain people time and time again point out how there's no demand for GN'R.

I think there are serious questions about domestic demand for this line-up.

The scope of the next real tour will tell the tale conclusively.  As I often say, we can't both be right.

[TheBaconman]

But, we've had certain people time and time again point out how there's no demand for GN'R.

I think there are serious questions about domestic demand for this line-up.

The scope of the next real tour will tell the tale conclusively.  As I often say, we can't both be right.

Oh is this the part part where I bring up all my "live music is dead in the United States " stuff hahAha

I will save us all from that

Too bad you guys couldn't save us all from the "I know you are, but what am I" routine.

[jarmo]

But, we've had certain people time and time again point out how there's no demand for GN'R.

I think there are serious questions about domestic demand for this line-up.

The scope of the next real tour will tell the tale conclusively.  As I often say, we can't both be right.

There is the problem with what you keep repeating.
You keep saying it's about GN'R even though I've posted numerous times about other hard rock / metal bands and how well they are doing in the USA. For some strange reason, you keep ignoring this.

It's not a GN'R specific thing. It's not about GN'R only. AC/DC is playing more stadium shows in Canada than they do in the USA. Australia will have more stadium shows by them than the USA. Now somebody will chime in about how they are saving the other shows for later....

Metallica are only doing one offs and festivals, no proper arena tour in years. These are popular bands in that genre.

I wish you would find the will to take that info in and think.

I'm not saying GN'R can or can't play certain venue sizes in the USA. Why? Because I don't know when the next tour is, how it's promoted, the timing or anything else about it.

The fact that they played smaller venues around some festival dates doesn't really say that much. To me it says that they wanted to play a few more gigs instead of just playing a festival here and there, without carrying a huge arena production with them.





/jarmo

[zombux]

But, we've had certain people time and time again point out how there's no demand for GN'R.

I think there are serious questions about domestic demand for this line-up.

The scope of the next real tour will tell the tale conclusively.  As I often say, we can't both be right.

I don't really think this is about the lineup, no. this is PURELY about actually releasing stuff and promoting it. any lineup this band had was enough to create fantastic music - and in the end everything failed just because the music got shelved.

[D-GenerationX]

The fact that they played smaller venues around some festival dates doesn't really say that much. To me it says that they wanted to play a few more gigs instead of just playing a festival here and there, without carrying a huge arena production with them.

I think you might be able to sell that.  How the past few years were nothing really official and organized.

OK, fine.

But if, god willing, another album comes out, there will be a more organized official tour.  And, at that point, the places they book are going to be the final word on the matter.

- U2 is playing arenas 
- Van Halen is playing arenas
- Foo Fighters are playing arenas 
- Smashing Pumpkins/Marilyn Manson are playing arenas
- Motley Crue are playing arenas
- Aerosmith are playing arenas
- Pearl Jam are playing arenas

Gun to my head, I would have to say that any next GNR tour will not be an arena tour.

The difference between us is that, if that occurs, I will say I was wrong.  You, on the other hand, will have a laundry list of reasons that it doesn't mean anything.  That playing 3,000 seat shitholes here and there is actually a great example of how popular and in demand they are around here.

It will strain credibility to the breaking point.

[jarmo]

But if, god willing, another album comes out, there will be a more organized official tour.  And, at that point, the places they book are going to be the final word on the matter.

There's no final word until the final tour.
Things change. Sometimes during the same tour.

Does it bother you that GN'R only played stadiums in the USA in 1992 with Metallica but were playing them outside the USA since 1991?
Be careful when you use the "no demand" phrase because it might reflect more on your country than the band itself... But don't ask me, ask Baconman. He'll tell you! 

- U2 is playing arenas 

I don't know what to say.... Honestly. U2? Their situation is that similar to GN'R's?

- Van Halen is playing arenas
- Foo Fighters are playing arenas 
- Smashing Pumpkins/Marilyn Manson are playing arenas
- Motley Crue are playing arenas
- Aerosmith are playing arenas
- Pearl Jam are playing arenas

Gun to my head, I would have to say that any next GNR tour will not be an arena tour.

Ok, I see. you're listing bands who play arenas that aren't even remotely in the same situation GN'R is in.

SP/MM? A package tour? Yet on his own Manson played clubs...
So if GN'R tours with Aerosmith, Foo Fighters and Smashing Pumpkins in stadiums you'll say GN'R is playing stadiums?

The difference between us is that, if that occurs, I will say I was wrong.  You, on the other hand, will have a laundry list of reasons that it doesn't mean anything. 

Haha. Again with the "I'll admit I was wrong".
I do remember you doing that once, after almost having been verbally arm wrestled to admit it.

That playing 3,000 seat shitholes here and there is actually a great example of how popular and in demand they are around here.

It will strain credibility to the breaking point.

Around here? The galaxy known as PA?

Why didn't GN'R play in PA in 1993? No demand?

Also, why did you ignore the point about bands who play less shows in the USA? What's your take on AC/DC for example? You just chose to ignore it for some reason... Weird.
In addition, your "Gun to my head, I would have to say that any next GNR tour will not be an arena tour." prediction is kinda lame. You make a general statement like that so you don't have to take a big risk. One fucking club date on that tour and you'll be there with your "I told you so!".





/jarmo

[LongGoneDay]

Wow. Article seems a touch flawed to my eyes.

First, it?s hard to make the argument that Guns N? Roses is relevant today.
Worth talking about? Of course. But when people talk about Guns N? Roses, it?s typically about the long dead incarnation from 20+ years ago.
I don?t think there are many discussions outside of HTGTH regarding today?s lineup, whatever that happens to be.

It?s tough to paint Axl as a GN?R surviver, when his actions and inactions played large roles in other?s decisions to leave in the first place.
He owns the name, and the name prints money, so keeping it active, even if active to some resembles life support, is hardly some noble gesture.

How is it amazing that Axl can fill voids and vacancies? It?s a job, and a job that probably pays pretty well. It would be more amazing if someone didn?t apply for that gig, but whereas people apply to clean toilets, adding this to Axl's list of accomplishments seems a bit of a stretch.

What is Axl fighting, exactly? What is he continuing? Where?s this new music the writer speaks of? That singular album from 2008? The album(s) in the ?Vault??
Touring is how bands make money these days, and its the only thing Guns N? Roses does on a semi consistent basis.
It?s a tough sell to file tours built on the backs of decade old albums, recorded by long since dissolved lineups under the accomplishment column.

The difference between Velvet Revolver playing a Guns N? Roses song and Axl playing a Guns N? Roses song, is that Velvet Revolver isn?t charging GN?R ticket prices to see a bunch of people no one has ever heard of cover Guns N? Roses songs.

Yes, it?s true that "nothing can erase what Axl Rose has accomplished and achieved" but then again, no one is trying to.
People would like to see him accomplish, and achieve more. That?s what makes them fans. The fact that he hasn?t leads to some fans frustration.
That doesn?t make one a ?keyboard warrior?, or mean they think they can sing and hold high notes like Axl Rose.

[jarmo]

First, it?s hard to make the argument that Guns N? Roses is relevant today.

They are. Axl's in the band.

There's nobody else like him. For some fans, this is a negative thing. They seem to have forgotten that they became fans of the band that Axl was also in.

But anyway, that doesn't change the fact that he still is relevant. Originals are always relevant.


Regarding the erasing what he has achieved. I get that point. The negativity can be the focus for some. So when you think like that, or read shit like it, it's easy to forget what has been achieved.



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Does it bother you that GN'R only played stadiums in the USA in 1992 with Metallica but were playing them outside the USA since 1991?
Be careful when you use the "no demand" phrase because it might reflect more on your country than the band itself... But don't ask me, ask Baconman. He'll tell you! 

Stadiums are very hard here.  These days, its either a country bill with 2 or 3 acts on it, or Taylor Swift.  Roll call is short for stadium acts in the U.S.

I know its far more common for bands that were only ever arena acts here to play stadiums abroad.  I think at least part of that reason is that in some of these countries, they might only be playing one city.  Maybe a handful.  Here, we have 50 states.  You don't really need to travel to catch them.  So you take a band like Aeroomith that was never a stadium act here, even in the late 80s/early 90s when they were huge.  But they played stadiums elsewhere.

[D-GenerationX]

- U2 is playing arenas 

I don't know what to say.... Honestly. U2? Their situation is that similar to GN'R's?

Honestly?  No.

There are not the same on just about any level, but I highly doubt you want to pick that scab unless you want to seriously bum yourself out.

But they are a huge rock act, one of the biggest names in the genre.  In that sense, theoretically, they are like Guns N' Roses.

They seem to be doing OK.

[D-GenerationX]

- Van Halen is playing arenas
- Foo Fighters are playing arenas 
- Smashing Pumpkins/Marilyn Manson are playing arenas
- Motley Crue are playing arenas
- Aerosmith are playing arenas
- Pearl Jam are playing arenas

Gun to my head, I would have to say that any next GNR tour will not be an arena tour.

Ok, I see. you're listing bands who play arenas that aren't even remotely in the same situation GN'R is in.

They are major rock acts that tour arenas without a problem.  Yes, yes, despite your well researched theory why that can't possibly be done.

And those are just the ones off the top of my head that have come through lately.  Its not a complete list by any means.

[D-GenerationX]

That playing 3,000 seat shitholes here and there is actually a great example of how popular and in demand they are around here.

It will strain credibility to the breaking point.

Around here? The galaxy known as PA?

The United States Of America.  Their home country.  And, you know, the very topic we are discussing.

Why didn't GN'R play in PA in 1993? No demand?

Dunno.  We didn't get a show in 1992 either though.  December 17, 1991 is the last show they played here.

There was that other one since then, but...well, you know.