Eddie Trunk On Reunion Rumors. Hear Him Out.

[pilferk]

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.

I know this is a jab at a long standing argument between you and jarmo about "live vs memorex" and I'm going to leave it alone, since it really doesn't have anything to do with my point.

MY point is that bootlegs have increased in quality, drastically, in the past, say, 3 to 5 years (and esp in the last 3...where every phone is pretty much a high capacity, high quality, digital recorder).  And those recordings might, possibly, effect how you can monetize your material down the line. Or how you get to "release" it.

Way different than even, say, 2006  (I'm thinking, specifically, of the Hammerstein shows)..where it was MUCH harder to get anything of quality without a soundboard hook in or an amazingly expensive camera that would be way harder to smuggle in than, say, your phone.

[D-GenerationX]

MY point is that bootlegs have increased in quality, drastically, in the past, say, 3 to 5 years (and esp in the last 3...where every phone is pretty much a high capacity, high quality, digital recorder).  And those recordings might, possibly, effect how you can monetize your material down the line. Or how you get to "release" it.

But good as it is, is it ever going to serve as a replacement of an official product?  I would say there is no chance of that.

[EmilyGNR]

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"

Any new song played would doubtlessly be up on YouTube in a matter of minutes, this is a very valid concern.

The industry has changed, and so has technology and the public's appetite for immediate gratification.

Cell phones were not an issue in the early 90's, they were not so well developed in 2006- and you weren't allowed to have them in certain venues- for instance, the Hammerstein shows.

Having the first impression of a new song come from someone's questionable quality cellphone recording is a viable concern.

[D-GenerationX]

Any new song played would doubtlessly be up on YouTube in a matter of minutes, this is a very valid concern.

The industry has changed, and so has technology and the public's appetite for immediate gratification.

Cell phones were not an issue in the early 90's, they were not so well developed in 2006- and you weren't allowed to have them in certain venues- for instance, the Hammerstein shows.

Having the first impression of a new song come from someone's questionable quality cellphone recording is a viable concern.

These are valid points.

However, do you think the odds are high that anyone that is actually in the market to buy new GNR material is going to be turned off by what they heard on a cellphone recording?

This is the part I can't reconcile.

Even if a new song sounded godfuckingawful, it would not even remotely affect my interest in hearing its proper version.

[EmilyGNR]

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.

You can't compare the industry practices of the late 80's -early 90's with today's practices nor the advancement of technology.

GNR played some unreleased UYI songs - but nobody had a galaxy 5 to pop out, record it, and stick it on YouTube.

[EmilyGNR]

Any new song played would doubtlessly be up on YouTube in a matter of minutes, this is a very valid concern.

The industry has changed, and so has technology and the public's appetite for immediate gratification.

Cell phones were not an issue in the early 90's, they were not so well developed in 2006- and you weren't allowed to have them in certain venues- for instance, the Hammerstein shows.

Having the first impression of a new song come from someone's questionable quality cellphone recording is a viable concern.

These are valid points.

However, do you think the odds are high that anyone that is actually in the market to buy new GNR material is going to be turned off by what they heard on a cellphone recording?

This is the part I can't reconcile.

Even if a new song sounded godfuckingawful, it would not even remotely affect my interest in hearing its proper version.

I think a lot of people are susceptible and base their opinion on first impressions, why take the chance of seeing a song you worked hard on get it's premier on some crappy, possibly subpar cell phone recording?

[pilferk]

But good as it is, is it ever going to serve as a replacement of an official product?  I would say there is no chance of that.

Depends on "for who", and what you mean by "replace".

I suspect the leaks proved "good enough" quality for some people, considering how much of the material was there.

I think show recordings, when done well, are REALLY starting to approach that level of quality.  Are they there yet? No, they're not.  But they are getting close enough that an audio rip of that video might, for some folks, be "good enough".

When I say replace, I mean in lieu of purchase.  Not of the same quality as.  So, on one side, no..they won't replace the official products, in terms of quality.  Even the best bootlegs, today, don't equal the quality of the Blu-Ray release of Appetite for Democracy.  BUT...that doesn't mean that some folks won't look at a bootleg of the Vegas show(s), look at the price of the Blu Ray...and say "nope, I'm good with the unofficial stuff".

[pilferk]

Any new song played would doubtlessly be up on YouTube in a matter of minutes, this is a very valid concern.

The industry has changed, and so has technology and the public's appetite for immediate gratification.

Cell phones were not an issue in the early 90's, they were not so well developed in 2006- and you weren't allowed to have them in certain venues- for instance, the Hammerstein shows.

Having the first impression of a new song come from someone's questionable quality cellphone recording is a viable concern.

These are valid points.

However, do you think the odds are high that anyone that is actually in the market to buy new GNR material is going to be turned off by what they heard on a cellphone recording?

This is the part I can't reconcile.

Even if a new song sounded godfuckingawful, it would not even remotely affect my interest in hearing its proper version.

Yours?

Nope, I agree. Mine either.

The average joe, who stumbles across a link to the vid on his friends facebook page?  You're just piling on one more way for them to point and laugh.

So, yeah, I absolutely think that.  You can argue if that person might actually consider purchasing a GnR album in the first place. Fair enough.  But who knows what would have happened if that material had been exposed to them in a different way?  You lose a POTENTIAL sale, maybe.  And odds are, at some point, you lose at least some actual sales, when amortized over all the eyeballs that watch it.

[jarmo]

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.

One question: When was the last time everything went swimmingly for "us"?



/jarmo

[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.

Yes, before they were signed to a record company they played songs that were unreleased.... It's kinda the only way for bands to get signed and build an audience. So if you wanna do that, you got very little options don't you think?

Also, have you noticed anything changing between say 1991 and today? Maybe something relating to technology? Just asking because it seems like you're not paying attention to this thing called the Internet where something played live once will end up on the Internet in minutes for the whole world to see.... Yes I admit to being a smart ass, but I can't believe somebody would say something like "but they did this in 1988 and why can't they do it in 2015?". It's kinda obvious why.



/jarmo

[Wooody]

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.

Yes, before they were signed to a record company they played songs that were unreleased.... It's kinda the only way for bands to get signed and build an audience. So if you wanna do that, you got very little options don't you think?

Also, have you noticed anything changing between say 1991 and today? Maybe something relating to technology? Just asking because it seems like you're not paying attention to this thing called the Internet where something played live once will end up on the Internet in minutes for the whole world to see.... Yes I admit to being a smart ass, but I can't believe somebody would say something like "but they did this in 1988 and why can't they do it in 2015?". It's kinda obvious why.



/jarmo

It still doesn't explain why it is wrong. So what if a live song gets recorded and uploaded? if it's good, no matter how cheap the recording is, it is still going to be a good song, people will blame the bad recording, not the artists, unless he doesnt sing or play well, in which case its his fault and should spend more time practicing.

 Some artist have gone that way ,  instead of hiding everything they create they make the whole album available but still charge in case people want to buy them.

We've reached a moment in this day and age where people who love the music and the artist and have the money,  are the ones who buy the albums. They are the target audience.

If you are somewhat afraid that live recordings are going to hurt the sales of your album its because you expect people to buy the album without listening to it, in order words, they pay in order to check it out.

[EmilyGNR]

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.

Yes, before they were signed to a record company they played songs that were unreleased.... It's kinda the only way for bands to get signed and build an audience. So if you wanna do that, you got very little options don't you think?

Also, have you noticed anything changing between say 1991 and today? Maybe something relating to technology? Just asking because it seems like you're not paying attention to this thing called the Internet where something played live once will end up on the Internet in minutes for the whole world to see.... Yes I admit to being a smart ass, but I can't believe somebody would say something like "but they did this in 1988 and why can't they do it in 2015?". It's kinda obvious why.



/jarmo

It still doesn't explain why it is wrong. So what if a live song gets recorded and uploaded? if it's good, no matter how cheap the recording is, it is still going to be a good song, people will blame the bad recording, not the artists, unless he doesnt sing or play well, in which case its his fault and should spend more time practicing.

 Some artist have gone that way ,  instead of hiding everything they create they make the whole album available but still charge in case people want to buy them.

We've reached a moment in this day and age where people who love the music and the artist and have the money,  are the ones who buy the albums. They are the target audience.

If you are somewhat afraid that live recordings are going to hurt the sales of your album its because you expect people to buy the album without listening to it, in order words, they pay in order to check it out.

Worlds of difference in "wrong" and not desirable or preferable.

Some people would go on first impressions, you are effectively diminishing the impact the song would have under optimal conditions.

[Princess Leia]

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.

Yes, before they were signed to a record company they played songs that were unreleased.... It's kinda the only way for bands to get signed and build an audience. So if you wanna do that, you got very little options don't you think?

Also, have you noticed anything changing between say 1991 and today? Maybe something relating to technology? Just asking because it seems like you're not paying attention to this thing called the Internet where something played live once will end up on the Internet in minutes for the whole world to see.... Yes I admit to being a smart ass, but I can't believe somebody would say something like "but they did this in 1988 and why can't they do it in 2015?". It's kinda obvious why.



/jarmo

Technology is given too much credit in this debate. I think there could be other issues. For example some people may not care about NuGN?R. Others may think GN?R is a thing of the past. And they rather listen to other bands. So even if there is no new songs perfomed live , no leaks  and no Youtube. Still that won?t changes how some people might feel. And an eventual new album is not going to make impact anyway

[jarmo]

It still doesn't explain why it is wrong.

GN'R did that in the past. Is it possible they decided to try a different way of doing things this time?
I understand how much you'd want them to play new songs live, but you have to understand that it's not only a good thing. There's downsides. I'm sure you can see that, and you're just arguing this because you'd prefer them to play new songs live and then not having the surprise effect later, right?

Technology is given too much credit in this debate.

No it's not.

You played a song live in 1991, and if somebody made a bootleg, it could get out. Tapes being traded and so on. But nothing like having it on Youtube. Almost everybody who goes to a show is a potential bootlegger these days. It used to require a bit more determination in the past. You had to get the gear into the gig first and bring enough batteries and so on.

So yes, chances of your new song appearing in circulation is way bigger and it gets spread way more today than in 1991. Sorry but that's the way it is.

Nothing to do with what bands people listen to.



/jarmo

[Wooody]

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.

Yes, before they were signed to a record company they played songs that were unreleased.... It's kinda the only way for bands to get signed and build an audience. So if you wanna do that, you got very little options don't you think?

Also, have you noticed anything changing between say 1991 and today? Maybe something relating to technology? Just asking because it seems like you're not paying attention to this thing called the Internet where something played live once will end up on the Internet in minutes for the whole world to see.... Yes I admit to being a smart ass, but I can't believe somebody would say something like "but they did this in 1988 and why can't they do it in 2015?". It's kinda obvious why.



/jarmo

It still doesn't explain why it is wrong. So what if a live song gets recorded and uploaded? if it's good, no matter how cheap the recording is, it is still going to be a good song, people will blame the bad recording, not the artists, unless he doesnt sing or play well, in which case its his fault and should spend more time practicing.

 Some artist have gone that way ,  instead of hiding everything they create they make the whole album available but still charge in case people want to buy them.

We've reached a moment in this day and age where people who love the music and the artist and have the money,  are the ones who buy the albums. They are the target audience.

If you are somewhat afraid that live recordings are going to hurt the sales of your album its because you expect people to buy the album without listening to it, in order words, they pay in order to check it out.

Worlds of difference in "wrong" and not desirable or preferable.

Some people would go on first impressions, you are effectively diminishing the impact the song would have under optimal conditions.

It is the responsibility of the artist to make that first impression a good one, not the audience.

Some other people go on first looks, but we don't mind them.

[Wooody]

It still doesn't explain why it is wrong.

GN'R did that in the past. Is it possible they decided to try a different way of doing things this time?
I understand how much you'd want them to play new songs live, but you have to understand that it's not only a good thing. There's downsides. I'm sure you can see that, and you're just arguing this because you'd prefer them to play new songs live and then not having the surprise effect later, right?

[/quote]

UHmm, there's no surprise effect when you first hear them live? 

I heard Madagascar live the first time ROck in Rio, to this day it is still the version I listen to. Some people were turned off by it on the VMA'S, but that was based on far more distractions than the song itself.

New people with a weird look, Axl out of breath, voice breaking. And a lot people didnt pay attention to the great  song behind it.
If they had not played that song live, I would've gotten the version that was on the album. And I don't like that version because Axl changed the vocals.

You could argue that the live performance hurt the album experience, but I could argue that it is just a better performance of the song and I don't think I would've liked the album version eitherway. So I may not have liked the song at all.

[pilferk]

It still doesn't explain why it is wrong.

GN'R did that in the past. Is it possible they decided to try a different way of doing things this time?
I understand how much you'd want them to play new songs live, but you have to understand that it's not only a good thing. There's downsides. I'm sure you can see that, and you're just arguing this because you'd prefer them to play new songs live and then not having the surprise effect later, right?

Technology is given too much credit in this debate.

No it's not.

You played a song live in 1991, and if somebody made a bootleg, it could get out. Tapes being traded and so on. But nothing like having it on Youtube. Almost everybody who goes to a show is a potential bootlegger these days. It used to require a bit more determination in the past. You had to get the gear into the gig first and bring enough batteries and so on.

So yes, chances of your new song appearing in circulation is way bigger and it gets spread way more today than in 1991. Sorry but that's the way it is.

Nothing to do with what bands people listen to.



/jarmo

Yeah, with that tech statement, i'm out. Between the narrow defintion of what constitutes existence, and that stunnng lack of understanding of what s true in todays music industry.....and not just for gnr, for pretty much everyone...theres just not enogh common ground or understanding to base a legit duscussion.

Its just going to lead to banging my head into the wall.

[pilferk]

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.

Yes, before they were signed to a record company they played songs that were unreleased.... It's kinda the only way for bands to get signed and build an audience. So if you wanna do that, you got very little options don't you think?

Also, have you noticed anything changing between say 1991 and today? Maybe something relating to technology? Just asking because it seems like you're not paying attention to this thing called the Internet where something played live once will end up on the Internet in minutes for the whole world to see.... Yes I admit to being a smart ass, but I can't believe somebody would say something like "but they did this in 1988 and why can't they do it in 2015?". It's kinda obvious why.



/jarmo

It still doesn't explain why it is wrong. So what if a live song gets recorded and uploaded? if it's good, no matter how cheap the recording is, it is still going to be a good song, people will blame the bad recording, not the artists, unless he doesnt sing or play well, in which case its his fault and should spend more time practicing.

 Some artist have gone that way ,  instead of hiding everything they create they make the whole album available but still charge in case people want to buy them.

We've reached a moment in this day and age where people who love the music and the artist and have the money,  are the ones who buy the albums. They are the target audience.

If you are somewhat afraid that live recordings are going to hurt the sales of your album its because you expect people to buy the album without listening to it, in order words, they pay in order to check it out.

Worlds of difference in "wrong" and not desirable or preferable.

Some people would go on first impressions, you are effectively diminishing the impact the song would have under optimal conditions.

It is the responsibility of the artist to make that first impression a good one, not the audience.

Some other people go on first looks, but we don't mind them.

Um, yes, exactly.

So the artist is takng that responsibility seriously, and not putting themselves in a position that their material might not make the best first impression. And, again, this isnt unique to gnr.

Nobody is blamng the audience for taking those vids, or realstically expecting them to stop.  Thats rather the point. You cant record whats not played live. Thus, artist responsibility.

[pilferk]

It still doesn't explain why it is wrong.

GN'R did that in the past. Is it possible they decided to try a different way of doing things this time?
I understand how much you'd want them to play new songs live, but you have to understand that it's not only a good thing. There's downsides. I'm sure you can see that, and you're just arguing this because you'd prefer them to play new songs live and then not having the surprise effect later, right?

UHmm, there's no surprise effect when you first hear them live? 

I heard Madagascar live the first time ROck in Rio, to this day it is still the version I listen to. Some people were turned off by it on the VMA'S, but that was based on far more distractions than the song itself.

New people with a weird look, Axl out of breath, voice breaking. And a lot people didnt pay attention to the great  song behind it.
If they had not played that song live, I would've gotten the version that was on the album. And I don't like that version because Axl changed the vocals.

You could argue that the live performance hurt the album experience, but I could argue that it is just a better performance of the song and I don't think I would've liked the album version eitherway. So I may not have liked the song at all.

But you said it yourself: theres an argument to be made that, the reason you preferred the live version was...you heard it.  And you heard it first. You think its not so..but how can you, or we, be sure? You cant undo that experience.  And that, really, just makes the point. 

[jarmo]

UHmm, there's no surprise effect when you first hear them live? 

Obviously I meant the surprise element once you buy the release with said song on it.  

I heard Madagascar live the first time ROck in Rio, to this day it is still the version I listen to.

Good point. In hindisght, maybe the band wishes your first listen would've been the album version so you didn't have that as your first impression?

If they had not played that song live, I would've gotten the version that was on the album. And I don't like that version because Axl changed the vocals.

If they played it the way it's on the album you wouldn't know any other way and you might be happy with it.


So did you or did you not understand any of the reasons why one wouldn't premier a new song live in concert before there's a release date set for said song? Just trying to figure out if you're just arguing because you want something, or because you don't understand something.  




/jarmo