Eddie Trunk On Reunion Rumors. Hear Him Out.

[Gavgnr]

My $0.02

If it's a choice (and assuming a new record is coming), I'd rather wait for a first-time listen of new tracks in studio quality.

Hearing tracks live is always great but it's never the full deal for me; more of an interpretation.

[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?

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. 

You claim I would've liked Madagascar just as much on the album if I hadn't heard it live before? right?
I disagree.
You know why I know ?
You know how sometimes Axl has a great night and his vocals are flawless? ( I had the chance to see that in 2006) but then some other nights he's got very bad vocals, so much so that I would rather stop watching the video because it makes me uneasy ? Well that's what happens to me when I listen to Madagascar on the album, I think he had a very bad vocal day and that very bad vocal day ended up on the album. Its my point of view and I have the right to say this. I do recognize the song is very good, but because of the vocals I can't listen to it. Maybe you like those vocals, and good for you, but I don't.

If we take it the other way around, with another example This I love. I actually think it sounds better live, the part that goes ''oh please you must believe me'' when I first heard it on the album I felt something was off,  and I heard the live version after the album and it seemed to me that it worked live, especially with Axl all alone screaming his ass off.  Had I heard it before you think It would've hurt the album experience? I don't, EDIT: it was already hurt, because as I said I felt something was off?  It just sounds better live to me.

[Wooody]

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

I understand the reasons, but I don't agree with them haha.

The problem might come from the fact that the song isnt finished and the band plays it anyway live.

If by definition a song is finished in the final Album version, then what you should've done was play it accordingly live or realize it was not finished and decide not to play it.

[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. 

You claim I would've liked Madagascar just as much on the album if I hadn't heard it live before? right?
I disagree.
You know why I know ?
You know how sometimes Axl has a great night and his vocals are flawless? ( I had the chance to see that in 2006) but then some other nights he's got very bad vocals, so much so that I would rather stop watching the video because it makes me uneasy ? Well that's what happens to me when I listen to Madagascar on the album, I think he had a very bad vocal day and that very bad vocal day ended up on the album. Its my point of view and I have the right to say this. I do recognize the song is very good, but because of the vocals I can't listen to it. Maybe you like those vocals, and good for you, but I don't.

If we take it the other way around, with another example This I love. I actually think it sounds better live, the part that goes ''oh please you must believe me'' when I first heard it on the album I felt something was off,  and I heard the live version after the album and it seemed to me that it worked live, especially with Axl all alone screaming his ass off.  Had I heard it before you think It would've hurt the album experience? I don't, EDIT: it was already hurt, because as I said I felt something was off?  It just sounds better live to me.

Not really. I'm claiming we dont know if you would have liked the album version, period, absent having heard the live version.

Because we cant go back and erase that experience, and have you listen to the album version first.

Which, in the discussion, is exactly the point.

Its ok to like the live version more (as your this i love example shows)..but the point is, if you hear the live version first, and love it...why seek out (and pay for) the album version? Why not stick with the bootleg version?

And vice versa. If you hear a live version first, and hate it..are you going to give it another try on the album (a la silkworms/rhiad)?

I know, FOR YOU, the answer to the above questions is yes, you would still buy the album. But i suspect it might not be so true for many if the more casual fans.

[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?

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. 

You claim I would've liked Madagascar just as much on the album if I hadn't heard it live before? right?
I disagree.
You know why I know ?
You know how sometimes Axl has a great night and his vocals are flawless? ( I had the chance to see that in 2006) but then some other nights he's got very bad vocals, so much so that I would rather stop watching the video because it makes me uneasy ? Well that's what happens to me when I listen to Madagascar on the album, I think he had a very bad vocal day and that very bad vocal day ended up on the album. Its my point of view and I have the right to say this. I do recognize the song is very good, but because of the vocals I can't listen to it. Maybe you like those vocals, and good for you, but I don't.

If we take it the other way around, with another example This I love. I actually think it sounds better live, the part that goes ''oh please you must believe me'' when I first heard it on the album I felt something was off,  and I heard the live version after the album and it seemed to me that it worked live, especially with Axl all alone screaming his ass off.  Had I heard it before you think It would've hurt the album experience? I don't, EDIT: it was already hurt, because as I said I felt something was off?  It just sounds better live to me.

Not really. I'm claiming we dont know if you would have liked the album version, period, absent having heard the live version.

Because we cant go back and erase that experience, and have you listen to the album version first.

Which, in the discussion, is exactly the point.

Its ok to like the live version more (as your this i love example shows)..but the point is, if you hear the live version first, and love it...why seek out (and pay for) the album version? Why not stick with the bootleg version?

And vice versa. If you hear a live version first, and hate it..are you going to give it another try on the album (a la silkworms/rhiad)?

I know, FOR YOU, the answer to the above questions is yes, you would still buy the album. But i suspect it might not be so true for many if the more casual fans.

So, those questions are not for me but the casual fans? ok? But? am I not the one taking the money and buying the album? why give so much importance to casual fans. Chances are some will ike the album, like the live performance and still not pay, so who cares about them ? 


EDIT: But I still believe I wouldnt have loved the album version of madagascar as much second edit: or at all - because I never listen to that version- , based on the fact that I dont think it was a good vocal performance, not because I heard the live version. If Axl had gone the raspy route but it was actually a good raspy performance maybe I would've liked it. Its not so much that it is different from the live version, its just that it is not good.

[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. 

You claim I would've liked Madagascar just as much on the album if I hadn't heard it live before? right?
I disagree.
You know why I know ?
You know how sometimes Axl has a great night and his vocals are flawless? ( I had the chance to see that in 2006) but then some other nights he's got very bad vocals, so much so that I would rather stop watching the video because it makes me uneasy ? Well that's what happens to me when I listen to Madagascar on the album, I think he had a very bad vocal day and that very bad vocal day ended up on the album. Its my point of view and I have the right to say this. I do recognize the song is very good, but because of the vocals I can't listen to it. Maybe you like those vocals, and good for you, but I don't.

If we take it the other way around, with another example This I love. I actually think it sounds better live, the part that goes ''oh please you must believe me'' when I first heard it on the album I felt something was off,  and I heard the live version after the album and it seemed to me that it worked live, especially with Axl all alone screaming his ass off.  Had I heard it before you think It would've hurt the album experience? I don't, EDIT: it was already hurt, because as I said I felt something was off?  It just sounds better live to me.

Not really. I'm claiming we dont know if you would have liked the album version, period, absent having heard the live version.

Because we cant go back and erase that experience, and have you listen to the album version first.

Which, in the discussion, is exactly the point.

Its ok to like the live version more (as your this i love example shows)..but the point is, if you hear the live version first, and love it...why seek out (and pay for) the album version? Why not stick with the bootleg version?

And vice versa. If you hear a live version first, and hate it..are you going to give it another try on the album (a la silkworms/rhiad)?

I know, FOR YOU, the answer to the above questions is yes, you would still buy the album. But i suspect it might not be so true for many if the more casual fans.

So, those questions are not for me but the casual fans? ok? But? am I not the one taking the money and buying the album? why give so much importance to casual fans. Chances are some will ike the album, like the live performance and still not pay, so who cares about them ? 


EDIT: But I still believe I wouldnt have loved the album version of madagascar as much, based on the fact that I dont think it was a good vocal performance, not because I heard the live version. If Axl had gone the raspy route but it was actually a good raspy performance maybe I would've liked it. Its not so much that it is different from the live version, its just that it is not good.

Sure.

But when you make decisions like this, they aren't based on "what would woody do".

They are based on "what is the majority of our potential customers/fans going to do". And thats not really what you, or i, or dx, or jarmo are going to do. We are the hardcore of the hardcore, posting on gnr message boards and spending hours shooting the shit about the band.

When i say "more casul", thats what i mean. Not us. Not "casual", entirely. More casual than us.

And they are given more imporance because, quite simply, there are a lot more of them.

[Wooody]

And they are given more imporance because, quite simply, there are a lot more of them.

But with GNR, arent there enough fans already ? arent there enough casual, non casual, fake, detractor fans that will check the music anyway? facebook gnr page has got 29 million "friends"  do you really have to worry that much about fan count ? and potential buyers?  Its not like its a band starting out? its not like they dont fill arenas all over the world.. its not like they won't get exposure, direct or indirect.

What is one live song going to do? erase 10 million friends from the facebook page?

[Wooody]

Also I don't think that casual fans, (the fans that seem to matter most $$$), either wait for the album or search for live performances of the band prior to the band releasing an album.
Fans do that, casual fans not so much.

The kind of casual album-buying fan, that will see it, search for it to give it a listen on the internet and potentially buy it does so when it is shoved down their throats with advertisement, that is, when it comes out.

EDIT: so how is a version of a live performance going to hurt the possibility of them buying the album if they have never heard it.

[ice cream sand pig]

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. 

You claim I would've liked Madagascar just as much on the album if I hadn't heard it live before? right?
I disagree.
You know why I know ?
You know how sometimes Axl has a great night and his vocals are flawless? ( I had the chance to see that in 2006) but then some other nights he's got very bad vocals, so much so that I would rather stop watching the video because it makes me uneasy ? Well that's what happens to me when I listen to Madagascar on the album, I think he had a very bad vocal day and that very bad vocal day ended up on the album. Its my point of view and I have the right to say this. I do recognize the song is very good, but because of the vocals I can't listen to it. Maybe you like those vocals, and good for you, but I don't.

If we take it the other way around, with another example This I love. I actually think it sounds better live, the part that goes ''oh please you must believe me'' when I first heard it on the album I felt something was off,  and I heard the live version after the album and it seemed to me that it worked live, especially with Axl all alone screaming his ass off.  Had I heard it before you think It would've hurt the album experience? I don't, EDIT: it was already hurt, because as I said I felt something was off?  It just sounds better live to me.

really!? Madagascar, bad vocals? youre of course free to your opinion, but wow. i dont see where your coming from.

i dont see any way how some bad vocals take would end up on the album considering how long the recording process was. i think if it didnt sound exactly as he wanted it to, it wouldnt have been on the album. he had so many chances to redo them if he thought otherwise.

i think theyre great! theres an evader remix out there (anubis?) where theres less going on in the background and you can hear the vox a litle more clearly than in the original version. the really long oh iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii is incredible. so much humanity and emotion crammed in that one part, its unreal.

[pilferk]

And they are given more imporance because, quite simply, there are a lot more of them.

But with GNR, arent there enough fans already ? arent there enough casual, non casual, fake, detractor fans that will check the music anyway? facebook gnr page has got 29 million "friends"  do you really have to worry that much about fan count ? and potential buyers?  Its not like its a band starting out? its not like they dont fill arenas all over the world.. its not like they won't get exposure, direct or indirect.

What is one live song going to do? erase 10 million friends from the facebook page?

In short: yes. You still have to worry about them.

Thats business.

How much of an effect i cant quantify, but its enough to make bands...and again, not just gnr...go this route.

[pilferk]

Also I don't think that casual fans, (the fans that seem to matter most $$$), either wait for the album or search for live performances of the band prior to the band releasing an album.
Fans do that, casual fans not so much.

The kind of casual album-buying fan, that will see it, search for it to give it a listen on the internet and potentially buy it does so when it is shoved down their throats with advertisement, that is, when it comes out.

EDIT: so how is a version of a live performance going to hurt the possibility of them buying the album if they have never heard it.

again..i point to the leaks. Look at how much exposure they got. You don't think "more casual" (again, thats a comarative to the hardcore, not a sum total measure and labe...that bit is important) fans were exposed to, and had access, to those? In droves? It really is the same principal...just a different delivery method (bootleg vs leak).

And, i beg to differ on the searching for music thing. Youtube vids, via vevo, etc.,, are one of the most popular things on youtube. Lots of folks, casual and otherwise, are getting their music that way. Thats not a supposition, its a fact.  Again, thats part of the changing in the industry.

We've covered that last bit, in the edit, over the past few posts. Good quality might be good enough, and poor quality might push them away. Both result in a potential lost sale.

[Wooody]

Also I don't think that casual fans, (the fans that seem to matter most $$$), either wait for the album or search for live performances of the band prior to the band releasing an album.
Fans do that, casual fans not so much.

The kind of casual album-buying fan, that will see it, search for it to give it a listen on the internet and potentially buy it does so when it is shoved down their throats with advertisement, that is, when it comes out.

EDIT: so how is a version of a live performance going to hurt the possibility of them buying the album if they have never heard it.

again..i point to the leaks. Look at how much exposure they got. You don't think "more casual" (again, thats a comarative to the hardcore, not a sum total measure and labe...that bit is important) fans were exposed to, and had access, to those? In droves? It really is the same principal...just a different delivery method (bootleg vs leak).

And, i beg to differ on the searching for music thing. Youtube vids, via vevo, etc.,, are one of the most popular things on youtube. Lots of folks, casual and otherwise, are getting their music that way. Thats not a supposition, its a fact.  Again, thats part of the changing in the industry.

We've covered that last bit, in the edit, over the past few posts. Good quality might be good enough, and poor quality might push them away. Both result in a potential lost sale.

Leaks is a whole different thing. I agree with leaks hurting the album.
But Not live. Live s supposed to be finished, leaks were not finished.

I don't disagree with the underlined bit, that's not what I meant to say,  I just meant potentially buying fans do not wait for the album, and therefor, do not look for GNR youtube videos as much as if they are told that the album is out.

[EmilyGNR]

Regarding the leaks--from the Billboard interview-

In his first official interview to promote the album, Rose said it was ?hard to say? whether the leak was responsible for the album?s poor sales.

But he did acknowledge that fans would probably have grown ?emotionally attached? to the unfinished edits ahead of the record's release.

?Having someone jeopardize your efforts so cavalierly is pretty much a nightmare,? he told Billboard.

?I don't know that it hurt us though, at least as one might think. Hard to say.

?That's not to imply leaks don't hurt artists, but that they were earlier roughs and the level of sound quality is much higher with the finals.?

He added: ?That said, you have those who become emotionally attached to how the leaks sound, which, for better or worse, usually isn't so great to contend with.

?And it seems that those who often do so and complain publicly, oddly and coincidentally, have a history of basically being detractors as well even if they're somehow considered part of a ?fan? base.?

[Hell House]

Let me put it this way:

Using your narrow definition, Chinese Democracy, the album, did not exist until it hit store shelves in 2008.

Despite the fact there were comments from within, and from outside, the band who had heard the material. Despite the fact Axl had said that the material was recorded. Despite the fact we'd all pretty much heard some of the material performed live. Despite the fact that very rough mixes of many (most?) of the tracks had leaked before the album release.

Despite all evidence pointing to the fact that there was, in fact, a relatively completed album....by your definition, it didn't exist because it wasn't released.

That's fine, if that's your litmus.  But I think you're going to run into issues when discussing that topic, going forward (or backwards), with folks.  Because generally, the definition of an album is a little more broad.  "Smile" by Brian Wilson.  "Extrodinary Machine" by Fiona Apple.  Those were examples of albums that are considered to have existed long before they actually saw the light of day.....

I think the definition of "done" is going to be different for a lot of people. To me, it's when the recording's done. But I seem to recall from Slash's autobiography that Axl said, about the Illusion records, "the motherfucker is done". And at the time, what he meant was the albums we're ready to hit the shelves.

[norway]

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?

Duh, they are session-musicians! It's not like they don't interpret the material their own way tho.

[Princess Leia]

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.

Dude if you think that Axl is gonna sell more albums than Adele and U2 just because he doesn?t perfom one new song live. You?re delusional!!!

What hurt CD sales was not technology It was the whole pathetic soap opera that went on during the making of the album. The fact that a lot of people didn?t buy Axl?s idea that he and a bunch of nobodys are GN?R. A lot of causal fans or rock fans got fed with riots, tours cancellations or late start shows and lack of news and activity for years. And you are the one with a very narrow vision if you think that Youtube is to blame

[norway]

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?

Axl said something like 'we're holding back our big guns' when he talked about that. 06'ish interview iirc

[EmilyGNR]

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.

Dude if you think that Axl is gonna sell more albums than Adele and U2 just because he doesn?t perfom one new song live. You?re delusional!!!

What hurt CD sales was not technology It was the whole pathetic soap opera that went on during the making of the album. The fact that a lot of people didn?t buy Axl?s idea that he and a bunch of nobodys are GN?R. A lot of causal fans or rock fans got fed with riots, tours cancellations or late start shows and lack of news and activity for years. And you are the one with a very narrow vision if you think that Youtube is to blame

Only one willingly delusional and ignorant here is you.

Nobody here ever brought up "selling more albums than Adele? and U2"-- straw man nonsense.

Your apparent ignorance toward the changes in both the industry and the advances in technology is astounding and apparently this ignorance extends to other areas as well.

It is delusional how you pretend to speak for an entire cross section of fans-

[jarmo]

I understand the reasons, but I don't agree with them haha.

The problem might come from the fact that the song isnt finished and the band plays it anyway live.

If by definition a song is finished in the final Album version, then what you should've done was play it accordingly live or realize it was not finished and decide not to play it.

Ok, good.

In this case, I don't think it's so much about the songs not being done. Just that playing songs live before you know when the audience can buy them, might not be the right strategy. That's what I think.

Dude if you think that Axl is gonna sell more albums than Adele and U2 just because he doesn?t perfom one new song live. You?re delusional!!!

Once again, that's you trying to prove your point. None of us made claims like that.

So get back to us when you take into account the technology that wasn't in use in 1991 compared to today. The fact that you're sitting there typing is partly made possible by that same technology we're talking about, that you don't wanna take into account. Ironic.





/jarmo

[sky dog]

He can sell as many albums as U2...they give theirs away for free.