Eddie Trunk On Reunion Rumors. Hear Him Out.

[EmilyGNR]

I've never held a million dollars.....

It's a myth I tell you!

Like that line in that song about finding a million Dollars that someone forgot....

Well, time went by and it most certainly all went up in smoke.  A few times over now.

If that is your opinion, why are you here on a fan forum of that band??

[EmilyGNR]

When you say "us" and "we" you are attempting to speak for others, or you are insinuating you somehow magically know what others think.

Its a general term that is easier to talk about than the rest of the point being made.

We need to get to the bottom of it!

Ooooh- wrong yet again.

It is an honest attempt to determine who you are pretending to speak for and falsely represent.

[D-GenerationX]

I think the leaks were the major part of it. But I think the fact a LOT of the material was played live contributed, too....especially considering how far out in front of the actual release date it was played.  I mean.....we're talking half a decade prior, in some cases.

Why, in your opinion, did they choose to play songs on the 2006 summer tour that had leaked over the spring?

I've heard people say that was "proof" the leaks were intentional, but I never bought that.  I always tended to think the played them out of a combination of the cat already being out of the bag, and the fact that if offered the band a chance to actually do more of their own material.

[D-GenerationX]

I've never held a million dollars.....

It's a myth I tell you!

Like that line in that song about finding a million Dollars that someone forgot....

Well, time went by and it most certainly all went up in smoke.  A few times over now.

If that is your opinion, why are you here on a fan forum of that band??

Because hope springs eternal.

Just because I'm not going to sit here and laughably try and pretend everything is going swimmingly doesn't mean I don't still hope it might...eventually.

[pilferk]

By "we" I meant fans in general. Was that hard to figure it out?

And the CD leaks is a really lame ass excuse. When OMG came out we didn?t have any leaks. When the band perfomed in RIR and Vegas 2001 there were no leaks either.

Yeah, but I don't think fans, in  general, have nearly as narrow a definition for existence, when it comes to an album, as you're suggesting you have, here.  So applying that "we", forward, isn't really apt.

Again, your litmus test is "I have to hear it with my own ears". Thus HOW you hear it becomes relevant.  It's not a lame excuse, it's history.  You heard some of the material prior to CD's release via live performance ...and the bulk of it because of leaks. True?  

So what you're saying is absent that...live show playing of a few tracks and the leaks of most of the rest of it..there's no album.  Because you've already said that just hearing about "pieces" from other people isn't enough for you.  You need to hear enough to label it "an album".

THAT is a very narrow definition of existence.  Way more narrow than you're going to find is commonly held.

[EmilyGNR]

I've never held a million dollars.....

It's a myth I tell you!

Like that line in that song about finding a million Dollars that someone forgot....

Well, time went by and it most certainly all went up in smoke.  A few times over now.

If that is your opinion, why are you here on a fan forum of that band??

Because hope springs eternal.

Just because I'm not going to sit here and laughably try and pretend everything is going swimmingly doesn't mean I don't still hope it might...eventually.

Gee, what would we ever do without your negative, toxic "open mindedness"

I don't see where anything is remotely as dire and dark as you like to pretend.

[pilferk]

I think the point is "we" think there is some evidence, in the way of comments from those in the band, and those outside it, who claim to have heard the tracks.

YOU (meaning Princess Leia, and those who might be on the same boat) want "tangible" evidence: IE to hear the actual notes played with your own ears.

I think that's a very narrow definition of something's existence.

I've never held a million dollars.....

Yeah, but I just roll my eyes at those sorts of questions.

Who is "we"?...Who are "the fans"?...Who is "everybody"?

How many times do you see that sort of thing in response to a post?  And it is ever NOT about trying to change the subject?

Maybe.

But in this case I think it's a fair question, considering how narrow the parameters are.

"We" implies that a ton of folks are going to expect the same sort of tangible evidence to believe that CD2 exists.

I don't think thats the case, here.  Or, rather, I think that "we" is much more narrow than "all fans".

[D-GenerationX]

So what you're saying is absent that...live show playing of a few tracks and the leaks of most of the rest of it..there's no album.  Because you've already said that just hearing about "pieces" from other people isn't enough for you.  You need to hear enough to label it "an album".

Do you think its odd that the others never press Axl to play more of their own stuff, rather than have the "new song" in the setlist being a song released in 1991 (Yesterdays)?

Do you think its odd that Axl is supposedly wanting to establish these new line-ups as a viable band, and figures the best way to do that it to play even more older songs they had nothing do with, both old GNR and random covers?

There really are no "right" answers here.  Just curious what you think.

[pilferk]

For the live show thing: We have heard bits and bites in the intro (according to Axl and some band members) and maybe some solos.  Yes, they haven't performed the stuff, in full, live.  BUT, they also had issues with leaks and bootlegs with CD...and one of the primary criticisms from folks was they had "heard it all, already" when it was released.  So I think there's an easy explanation, there. 

I think it was the outright leaks that played more of a role there, don't you think?

You can't really tell from a live version what the actual album version might sound like.  'Chinese Democracy' and 'The Blues' (as it was known at the time) from RIR III are still my favorite versions of the songs.  

But when we finally got the album, 7 years later, those versions were quite different.

The leaks of 'I.R.S.', 'Better', 'There Was A Time', 'If The World', 'Prostitute'...yeah, they were pretty much what we got on the album.  Only very minor tweaks.

I think the leaks were the major part of it. But I think the fact a LOT of the material was played live contributed, too....especially considering how far out in front of the actual release date it was played.  I mean.....we're talking half a decade prior, in some cases.

But I think if that's the criticism (and might have been a business point the label brought up in regards to the potential for CD2, maybe)....then you handle both parts.  Esp when you've already got a ton of material on your set list.

I also want to add..a lot of the material that was played live "later", but before CD's release...wasn't played until AFTER the leaks went critical mass.  I think that, likely, that material doesn't get played live if the leaks don't happen.

[pilferk]

So playing songs live before you know when they'll be released makes sense to you?

I certainly did not object to it at the time.  Did anyone?

It also spoke to the fact that they were excited about what they had worked out.  Let's cut the crap here.  

Do you think those guys got more enjoyment about playing the new songs they actually helped create...or running through 'Out Ta Get Me' for the umpteenth time?

And do you think the fans at the shows...the majority of them..not the hardest core of the hardcore...want to hear My Michelle or Out to Get Me or Anything goes vs something from CD2 they've never heard before?  That's a sincere question, and it's one I don't expect is going to be overly popular....

Because I know, when I've attended shows in 02 and 06...before CD came out...guess what the "casual" fans did, en masse, when IRS or the Blues was being played?  Off to use the head and buy a beer...

That changed during the shows I attended post CD release, at least to my eyes.

[EmilyGNR]

I think in the light of today's cyber climate it is very understandable why new songs aren't played at shows- they would end up on YouTube within minutes- and is that the way you want fans to first hear the song? From somebody's low quality YouTube they uploaded?

First presentations and impressions are very important.

They played unreleased material on tour in 1991 but cell phones and the internet were not a factor then- even cameras were prohibited.

[pilferk]

Why, in your opinion, did they choose to play songs on the 2006 summer tour that had leaked over the spring?

I've heard people say that was "proof" the leaks were intentional, but I never bought that.  I always tended to think the played them out of a combination of the cat already being out of the bag, and the fact that if offered the band a chance to actually do more of their own material.

I addressed that sort of in a follow up, but...I think when you have lemons, you make lemonade.

I don't think it was proof the leaks were intentional.  I think they were faced with the fact the leaks were out there, and they could move forward, and sort of grudgingly embrace the fact people dug some of the new stuff, or bury their heads in the sand and pretend they didn't happen.

FWIW, I think they made the right call to then PLAY the material live.  It gave them at least a small chance to present it in the light THEY wanted, and felt more comfortable with, over the leaks.

But, having said that, I don't think that material gets played, at that point, if the leaks don't happen.

[pilferk]

Do you think its odd that the others never press Axl to play more of their own stuff, rather than have the "new song" in the setlist being a song released in 1991 (Yesterdays)?

Do you think its odd that Axl is supposedly wanting to establish these new line-ups as a viable band, and figures the best way to do that it to play even more older songs they had nothing do with, both old GNR and random covers?

There really are no "right" answers here.  Just curious what you think.

I think, for live shows, they're very conscious of what they think the fans want to hear, at this point.  I think the chants for Don't Cry (which led to BBF playing the solo, which led to them adding the song to the setlist) and the like really did have an effect.

And they're doing 2.5 to 3 hour sets.  They have a LOT of "classic" material, that people want to hear.  And I know...I know...the setlist is the same every night, and there's no variety, and BLARGHHH!!!!  I'm not opening that can of worms again.

Suffice to say, I think the reason the band plays what they play is they think that's what the people buying tickets want to hear.  And that includes the rarities that are also fan favorites (Yesterday's is a great example). 

I also think they ARE a little gun shy of the leaks, and of the amount of material that got out there prior to CD release.  Especially if, of the 25-ish tracks they have put together that could potentially make CD2, they're not 100% sure which 13 or so are going in.  As jarmo alluded to, if you don't have a 100% set in stone track list, you don't want to start playing material that might not see the light of day for another 3, 5, 10 years.

[pilferk]

I think in the light of today's cyber climate it is very understandable why new songs aren't played at shows- they would end up on YouTube within minutes- and is that the way you want fans to first hear the song? From somebody's low quality YouTube they uploaded?

First presentations and impressions are very important.

They played unreleased material on tour in 1991 but cell phones and the internet were not a factor then- even cameras were prohibited.

I agree this is part of it.

I sort of disagree with the part about "low quality Youtube upload".  I mean: Yes, artistic presentation is a concern, and it might even be axls biggest concern, BUT...

I've seen full concerts in 720p taken from a phone, up close. 

The audio isn't PERFECT, but it's pretty damn good.

And that's the even bigger issue, at least from the business side: You potentially have something that sounds relatively close to a "live" album, containing unreleased material that you someday want to monetize, available to the masses.  It makes your material less valuable.

I know in the pop scene..the princesses have completely stopped playing anything that isn't released (by them, or someone else).  I don't see a LOT of bands playing new material, now a days, either....if it's not available as a single, or on an album, already.

I think, in part, this is one of the changes that have happened in the industry.....its kinda sad, because it really has changes the way a concert sort of ebbs and flows.  It's much more static, now.  You feel like there's not surprises.

[D-GenerationX]

Gee, what would we ever do without your negative, toxic "open mindedness"

I don't see where anything is remotely as dire and dark as you like to pretend.

Neat.

[D-GenerationX]

I don't think it was proof the leaks were intentional.  I think they were faced with the fact the leaks were out there, and they could move forward, and sort of grudgingly embrace the fact people dug some of the new stuff, or bury their heads in the sand and pretend they didn't happen.

FWIW, I think they made the right call to then PLAY the material live.  It gave them at least a small chance to present it in the light THEY wanted, and felt more comfortable with, over the leaks.

But, having said that, I don't think that material gets played, at that point, if the leaks don't happen.

Agreed all around.

I think it had to be a cool thing to see fans singing the words back to you.  I get the part about you maybe being pissed they downloaded the leaks, but I don't think you can discount the level of interest that would even compel them to track them down.

[D-GenerationX]

I sort of disagree with the part about "low quality Youtube upload".  I mean: Yes, artistic presentation is a concern, and it might even be axls biggest concern, BUT...

I've seen full concerts in 720p taken from a phone, up close. 

The audio isn't PERFECT, but it's pretty damn good.

Yep.  You can definitely get the gist.

And you can also make an at least somewhat informed definition on the quality of what you hearing.  Axl sounding good, Axl sounding shaky.  DJ nailing a solo, DJ being woefully out of tune.

You can get the gist.

[Princess Leia]

So playing songs live before you know when they'll be released makes sense to you?

That's what the band did last time around. Only to have certain fans complain about the "old songs they heard on bootlegs for years" when they were released.
I guess that's the explanation regarding live shows that I can think of.




/jarmo

Yes, and it made pefect sense for the band to do it. During the club days they perfomed AFD songs before the album came out. They played Patience, Used To Love Her and One In Million before Lies came out, same with the UYI albums.

So if they did it before I don?t see why all of a sudden  it is wrong to play new or unheard songs in a show.

[D-GenerationX]

So if they did it before I don?t see why all of a sudden  it is wrong to play new or unheard songs in a show.

Sure you do.

It's "right" because they didn't do it.  If they had done it (like the countless other examples that they did that very thing) it also would have been "right".

In other words, they were both "right" to do this very thing in 1987, 1988, 1991, 2001, 2002, 2006, and 2007...

...but also "right" NOT to do it in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.'

Guns N' Roses : Perpetually In The "Right"

[pilferk]

So if they did it before I don?t see why all of a sudden  it is wrong to play new or unheard songs in a show.

Sure you do.

It's "right" because they didn't do it.  If they had done it (like the countless other examples that they did that very thing) it also would have been "right".

In other words, they were both "right" to do this very thing in 1987, 1988, 1991, 2001, 2002, 2006, and 2007...

...but also "right" NOT to do it in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.'

Guns N' Roses : Perpetually In The "Right"

Yes.

Just like other bands have been "right" not to play new material, anymore, in their set lists, prior to release. When those same bands USED to do it.  I'd even go so far as to call it a "trend".

Again, I think it is VERY hard to make comparisons to the industry "then" vs "now".  Even if "then" is as recent as 2006 (and, again, they were sorta forced into playing the bulk of that new material with the leaks...like many artists are forced to release albums early when there are mass leaks prior to release).

Surely you can see there are technologies, and differences, that might make it less attractive to play those songs now? Right?

I get the point you're trying to make.  I'm just not sure THIS is the best example to use to make it.