Does anyone else wish CD had been more experimental?

[D-GenerationX]

I could see one or two CD songs in the set... but certainly not Shackler's... or Sorry !

Yeah, that's a point I agree on. 

Some songs would absolutely have a better chance than others, and some would have no shot due to drastically different styles.

[jarmo]

If you want to tell me Slash and Duff might be down to throw a CD song in a setlist, hey...maybe.  Who knows?

But, if they do, it won't have a thing to do with what happened with 'Reckless Life' in 1986.

It won't have a thing to do with it, maybe not.
But the point you missed was that they weren't completely alien to taking songs written and performed by others and making it their own in the past....
It's not literally the same exact thing, I didn't even say that. You just get all defensive if your narrow minded point of view is challenged.

Like I said, Duff has already performed some of those songs and didn't seem to mind.

Also, if there ever was an occasion where these guys were gonna play together, and Axl wanted the band to play some of those songs, you think the best answer to that request would be "No way!"?
So you don't think they'd wanna play them because they're still bitter about it. Wouldn't you say the best way to get over some of that is to play some of those songs? 

When you're able to see past that, then your "no, never" seems less likely to be the only possibility.



/jarmo

[Wooody]

If you want to tell me Slash and Duff might be down to throw a CD song in a setlist, hey...maybe.  Who knows?

But, if they do, it won't have a thing to do with what happened with 'Reckless Life' in 1986.

It won't have a thing to do with it, maybe not.
But the point you missed was that they weren't completely alien to taking songs written and performed by others and making it their own in the past....
It's not literally the same exact thing, I didn't even say that. You just get all defensive if your narrow minded point of view is challenged.

Like I said, Duff has already performed some of those songs and didn't seem to mind.

Also, if there ever was an occasion where these guys were gonna play together, and Axl wanted the band to play some of those songs, you think the best answer to that request would be "No way!"?
So you don't think they'd wanna play them because they're still bitter about it. Wouldn't you say the best way to get over some of that is to play some of those songs? 

When you're able to see past that, then your "no, never" seems less likely to be the only possibility.



/jarmo

Hmm, but to play TOmmy stuff is relatively easy. SLash is a great player, can get really technical and go pretty fast, but he's kind of like robin finck or dj ashba except better. However what Bumblefoot and Buckethead do technically speaking might be out of his range. That fingertappping atari sounding stuff is just not what Slash does.

[jarmo]

Of course it would sound different.
That's not the debate.

The debate seems to be that some are convinced there would be zero chance of any of the members of the old band wanting to play any of the stuff that was recorded with people who replaced them.

I'm not so sure.
A great song is a great song..... 




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

I think you are too quick to overlook and dismiss some of the baggage that comes along with it.

I also think patching it up with Axl is not automatically a ringing endorsement of what he has tried to do once he bounced them out.

This is not to say I am right and you are wrong.  We are both guessing.  But I think your near complete dismissal of these factors is a bit pie in the sky.

[sky dog]

Duff has already done it...the only problem would be Slash.

[jarmo]

Duff has already done it...the only problem would be Slash.

Exactly.

I think you are too quick to overlook and dismiss some of the baggage that comes along with it.

I also think patching it up with Axl is not automatically a ringing endorsement of what he has tried to do once he bounced them out.

This is not to say I am right and you are wrong.  We are both guessing.  But I think your near complete dismissal of these factors is a bit pie in the sky.

I didn't dismiss anything. I'm saying there's more to the picture than just "no way, never". I'd like to think that I have a somewhat open mind, I wish (not an entitled wish by the way!) that if they ever got to that point, they could let that kind of animosity go. But that's just me. I haven't been living my life hoping things were as they were over 20 years ago, ever since the last millennium ended.


I see that your way of thinking is rooted in the belief that he forced them out.
Then it's no wonder you can't see past anything else. Basically you're already making excuses for a hypothetical scenario with a negative outcome. What kind of blind follower are you? Joking!


And... Did I miss your answer to what I asked earlier?
The part about whether or not you think it would be the best way to handle a hypothetical scenario where they were thinking of playing some of those songs with a "hell no"?




/jarmo

[GNR4LIFEJD]

People keep saying there is little chance slash would play the Chinese democracy stuff, I would actually like to see axl sing some of the velvet revolver stuff not that I think it would ever happen but a lot of those songs I feel you could easily slide axl's vocals to it and it would sound awesome.

And anyone who likes to compare what slash has done musically to what axl has done since they parted ways yes slash has come out with a lot more stuff then axl that can't be debated. I actually liked the first couple of slash's snakepit albums but since he has had myles I really have not been impressed with that stuff again just my opinion. I would absolutely take the one album GNR has done because he expands the Guns N roses sound. From Appetite to Lies to UYI to ChiDem there has always been a progression in the sound some may not like it but I love what they put into it call me a loyalist if you want.

[jarmo]

VR was a different band. The songs we're talking about are part of the GN'R discography.

All those songs have the same singer. So it's not exactly like say Van Halen....



/jarmo

[JAEBALL]

VR was a different band. The songs we're talking about are part of the GN'R discography.

All those songs have the same singer. So it's not exactly like say Van Halen....



/jarmo

True.. but Slash has as much to do with CD songs as Axl does with VR songs... squadoosh.

Would be cool to hear since I love VR... but I wouldn't look for it.

I really hope we get some news soon... Another year of having no idea what the next GNR lineup looks like will keep me up at night. 

[jarmo]

but Slash has as much to do with CD songs as Axl does with VR songs... squadoosh.

One is released by Guns N' Roses.
The other is not.

 




/jarmo

[JAEBALL]

but Slash has as much to do with CD songs as Axl does with VR songs... squadoosh.

One is released by Guns N' Roses.
The other is not.

 




/jarmo

Yeah I think we all established that already.

[D-GenerationX]

And... Did I miss your answer to what I asked earlier?
The part about whether or not you think it would be the best way to handle a hypothetical scenario where they were thinking of playing some of those songs with a "hell no"?

I think its an awkward for Axl to even broach the subject, to be honest.  I think you enter into a reunion tour type of project knowing that's not a great idea.

I believe if the others were asked for their honest opinion on what he's done since they left, its a mix of resentment and lack of respect for the work.  I don't think they consider anything Axl has done terribly worthy of being considered peer caliber work under their band's banner.  I know that sort of talk steams your bean, but you asked (twice now), so I'm answering you.

The reason I don't think the Duff thing refutes that is another case of false equivalency.  Duff was filling in on an existing tour with an existing band.  He was doing Axl a favor.  That's more of a go with the flow type of deal. 

This theorized reunion tour is nothing of the sort.  Its a whole new endeavor that does not include the bulk of the band that Duff played with.  And, since this would be a starting from scratch operation, I don't see it as analogous.

In other words, I see a whole world of difference in Duff playing on 'This I Love' (just to use one song as an example) because it was a set song in the set of the tour he joined at the time.  Versus the inclusion of 'This I Love' (again, just to use as an example of a post-1993 song) in a reunion tour setlist, because that is a setlist you are putting together from scratch, for that tour.

And what the fuck does Slash or Duff really care about 'This I Love'?  Its not their song.  Its not a Guns N' Roses song, as they see it.

In closing, I will once again remind you that you asked me for these opinions.  And ask you don't freak the fuck out because you don't share them.

You asked my take.  That's my take.

[D-GenerationX]

People keep saying there is little chance slash would play the Chinese democracy stuff, I would actually like to see axl sing some of the velvet revolver stuff not that I think it would ever happen but a lot of those songs I feel you could easily slide axl's vocals to it and it would sound awesome.

I would highly doubt that's in the cards.  For the same reason that I don't think Slash or Duff gives a whit about CD tunes.

A reunion tour is to celebrate their time with the band.  Songs like 'Street Of Dreams' or 'Slither' have nothing to do with that time period.

And while I don't think anyone in the crowd would be opposed, per se, I think if you asked them if they would rather have one of those tunes in place of a classic GNR tune, the answer is a resounding no.

[jarmo]

Yeah I think we all established that already.

Yeah. I know.

I just don't share your opinion.
I think it'd be more likely to see a guitar player play songs he didn't record, than to hear Axl sing VR songs. That's all.

I think its an awkward for Axl to even broach the subject, to be honest.  I think you enter into a reunion tour type of project knowing that's not a great idea.

Why would that be awkward? For example, wasn't This I Love written in France? I'm assuming it wasn't written during the 2006 tour there. So, maybe it was in the 1990s....
Maybe it's a song they remember hearing back in the day. Who knows.

Also, it's not a song that sounds all that different to say something off the Illusions.

I believe if the others were asked for their honest opinion on what he's done since they left, its a mix of resentment and lack of respect for the work.  I don't think they consider anything Axl has done terribly worthy of being considered peer caliber work under their band's banner.  I know that sort of talk steams your bean, but you asked, so I'm answering.

You're correct, I didn't ask for you to post more negativity. Something that comes natural I guess...
I just asked a simple question whether or not you think it would be the best way to proceed, in that hypothetical scenario, by blankly refusing anything.

Your opinion basically is "yes, they wouldn't do it because they're still bitter" and all I asked you if you think that's the best way to approach the matter.
You don't seem to want to answer the question and instead dance around it. You can't seem to be able to say "No, it wouldn't be nice of them to do that if that was ever asked of them to do"....


You know, I gotta give you (some) credit though. You surely paint them out to be bitter resentful people. And I'm the one who's supposedly hating the old band and the former members! Imagine that!
But here I am saying maybe they're more open minded than that, and you're arguing with me. That's funny.

Where's CherryGarcia when you need him? Will you look at that!!  

The reason I don't think the Duff thing refutes that is another case of false equivalency.  Duff was filling in on an existing tour with an existing band.  He was doing Axl a favor.  That's more of a go with the flow type of deal.

Correct. He was filling in. But they rehearsed. He could've said "No, I prefer not to play those songs I had nothing to do with". Or like you you assume they think "Fuck no, those songs have nothing to do with GN'R and they suck!". But he chose not to.





/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Correct. He was filling in. But they rehearsed. He could've said "No, I prefer not to play those songs I had nothing to do with". Or like you you assume they think "Fuck no, those songs have nothing to do with GN'R and they suck!". But he chose not to.

Once again, these are not analogous situations.

He was a fill in mid-tour.  He was playing the role of Tommy Stinson.  Tommy Stinson was not going to say any of those things.

A reunion tour is its own endeavor with a totally different objective.  It is not Chapter VIII of the 'Chinese Democracy' tour.

Look at this from another angle.  Axl has largely ignored the UYI albums on these tours the past decade, other than the bigger singles.  Don't you think there is more of a chance some of those tunes would work their way back in if Slash and Duff came back full time?

Isn't there a better chance of them digging out a 'Bad Obsession' or a 'Double Talking Jive', songs they did, as opposed to an overwhelming desire to play 'Madagascar', something they had nothing to do with?

[D-GenerationX]

And, just as an aside, am I not the one giving Axl more benefit of the doubt in this conversation?  Talk about your role reversals.

I give him enough credit to realize a reunion tour with Slash and Duff is not about CD tunes.  I'm going to assume he's not going to draw a line in the sand and insist these songs be included.

Isn't that the more level headed premise?  Isn't suggesting he's going to insist those songs be included more of the same old tired "Axl The Dictator" routine?

As many of us have said, the best way to go about this is to see if the others actually say to him they'd like to play some of those songs.  There is your opening.  Yet if they don't do so, that's Axl's cue that it's probably not something they are all about.

[D-GenerationX]

Here's another thing.

(BTW, 3 posts in a row.  I hate myself right now.  I hate when people do this)

Are we saying we'd be disappointed if any sort of reunion your excluded material done post-1993?  Are we THAT dug in?

Or are we just spitballin'?

[OscarAxl22]

see... all things are possible.

Ok. So in essence, are you saying that you don't wish it was more experimental because it was too far off from the old GN'R's sound already, but if it was more experimental, people who think that, might still like it?
I think you got everything covered in that case.

Kinda like "It might rain, or not". 

Also, I suspect that if people didn't know who the performer is, there might be less resistance.... A great song is a great song, no matter who performs it.



/jarmo

To answer your first line, yeah of course. I think a lot of people would hold the opinion that if Axl and friends released a new guns n roses that sounded very electronic.. a lot of people including myself would say that its not what you would expect from GNR. The album could be great... and it could be shit... For people who like Rock.. id say they might not go much on it regardless of whether it was great or not. For people who like the other stuff, if it was in fact a good album, they might love it.. and still hate the previous 5 rock albums that were released. Again.. i guess it just depends where you stand?

I am not trying to cover all bases. I just have an opinion.. its worth no more then anybody elses i guess.

As for your last point... i totally agree, a great song is a great song.. no matter what. If Axl released something so far removed  from the previous yet it was something i dug... id listen to it.

But if the option was a choice between Axl releasing another great rock song or ballad like what we've seen previously..against Axl releasing a great tehnco song that might be played at a rave party in Ibiza.. id go for the former. That's just me.

The last point i would make is this.. If Axl released something so far removed from the Guns n Roses most people identify with, and that album wasnt well recieved, Axl would cop 10 times more shit then someone who just released that same album who hadnt had the success hes had. Axl would be a victim of his own great successes.. guess thats just how it works.

[jarmo]

He was a fill in mid-tour.  He was playing the role of Tommy Stinson.  Tommy Stinson was not going to say any of those things.

A reunion tour is its own endeavor with a totally different objective.  It is not Chapter VIII of the 'Chinese Democracy' tour.

Look at this from another angle.  Axl has largely ignored the UYI albums on these tours the past decade, other than the bigger singles.  Don't you think there is more of a chance some of those tunes would work their way back in if Slash and Duff came back full time?

Isn't there a better chance of them digging out a 'Bad Obsession' or a 'Double Talking Jive', songs they did, as opposed to an overwhelming desire to play 'Madagascar', something they had nothing to do with?

I am aware that he was filling in for Tommy on a specific tour.

But, and this is a big but, even a reunion tour would be a Guns N' Roses tour.
Axl wrote those songs, he sang on them.

Yes, it's possible some UYI songs have a bigger chance of appearing on a hypothetical reunion setlist. But that's not the debate.
The thing I've said all along is that I don't think it's a blatantly obvious "NO!" if there ever was a wish for them to perform some of those songs that weren't released in the 1980s or 1990s. Not all of those songs are that different from the other songs for them to be that quickly dismissed in my opinion.

Also, I hope people would have more respect for the material than what you assume.
Maybe I have that wish because I personally have more respect for the material than you. I don't know.

And, just as an aside, am I not the one giving Axl more benefit of the doubt in this conversation?  Talk about your role reversals.

I give him enough credit to realize a reunion tour with Slash and Duff is not about CD tunes.  I'm going to assume he's not going to draw a line in the sand and insist these songs be included.

Isn't that the more level headed premise?  Isn't suggesting he's going to insist those songs be included more of the same old tired "Axl The Dictator" routine?

As many of us have said, the best way to go about this is to see if the others actually say to him they'd like to play some of those songs.  There is your opening.  Yet if they don't do so, that's Axl's cue that it's probably not something they are all about.

Yes, you paint the former members as bitter resentful naysayers.
Like I already pointed out.

But in doing so, you had to put down the material, and what Axl's done, as well. Unfortunately.

Here's another thing.

(BTW, 3 posts in a row.  I hate myself right now.  I hate when people do this)

Are we saying we'd be disappointed if any sort of reunion your excluded material done post-1993?  Are we THAT dug in?

Or are we just spitballin'?

I don't usually spend time being disappointed about GN'R. So, no...
You're asking the wrong person. 

To answer your first line, yeah of course. I think a lot of people would hold the opinion that if Axl and friends released a new guns n roses that sounded very electronic.. a lot of people including myself would say that its not what you would expect from GNR. The album could be great... and it could be shit... For people who like Rock.. id say they might not go much on it regardless of whether it was great or not. For people who like the other stuff, if it was in fact a good album, they might love it.. and still hate the previous 5 rock albums that were released. Again.. i guess it just depends where you stand?

Yeah.
That's the thing though. I don't think there's a general rule.

Like I said, if it doesn't sounds like what people expect, it's already too different. So a bit more different than that, doesn't matter to those people.

But then you have the opposite, people who don't mind. They love when they're challenged like that. Like "I didn't expect this, and it's awesome!".

The last point i would make is this.. If Axl released something so far removed from the Guns n Roses most people identify with, and that album wasnt well recieved, Axl would cop 10 times more shit then someone who just released that same album who hadnt had the success hes had. Axl would be a victim of his own great successes.. guess thats just how it works.

That happens to anybody who goes off too much from the beaten path.




/jarmo