Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Tommy was interviewed by the brazilian site iG. He talks about GNR and The Replacements' reunion.

Musician Tommy Stinson talks to iG about Axl Rose, Guns' tours and his comeback to the Replacements

Nicknamed as "the general" by Axl Rose because of his leadership on Guns N' Roses' rehearsals,  the bassist Tommy Stinson is one of the oldest band members after Axl himself and keyboard player Dizzy Reed, joining the group in 1998.

Scheduled to come on the months of March and April this year, the hard rock group will be back to the country for concerts in seven capitals - even without a new record to show since "Chinese Democracy", released in 2008.

In an interview to iG, the bassist talks about the wish to add a new album to Guns' short discography, the band exists for 29 years and only 6 studio records. "I want to do a new album, I think it's a good time for us to get involved."

About the recent reunion of The Replacements, an influential punk rock group in the 80's to which Tommy joined at 11 years old due to insistence of his half-brother Bob Stinson, the musician sums up to say "it was fun". Bob died short after the band's dissolution, in 1991.

The Replacements had been mentioned as influence to bands like Nirvana, Wilco, Foo Fighters  and Green Day e its reunion is nobly motivated by the EP "Songs for Slim", recorded by Stinson and vocalist Paul Westerberg as a beneficent project to help the guitarist Slim Dunlap's treatment, who suffered a cerebral vascular accident in 2012.

Read the interview below.

iG: Does Axl Rose still  call you "general"?
Tommy Stinson: No, today I'm only "that guy" (laughs). The nickname came a long time ago. Nowadays I'm just "Tommy".

iG: What is the importance of Guns N' Roses to you?
Tommy Stinson: It's all very fun. I've been in the band  longer than the other members. It's really good to be able to travel, meet several countries, to play in Japan. I'm looking  forward to be back to  Brazil and I hope it's hot there, because I'm freezing here (in the United States).

iG: Is it hard to stay creative playing with the same musicians for so long?
Tommy Stinson: This is a good question. Guns N' Roses is doing more tours than albums. We want to make a new album, I  think it is a good time for us to get involved. But there are eight guys (in the band)  in several cities and it is hard to gather them all. I am trying to compose and send it over the internet, I want to make it happen. We talk about doing a new record, but we don't know to when it is going to be.

iG: And the reunion shows with The Replacements after 22 years apart, how have they been?
Tommy Stinson: The  reunion was fun, because we haven't played together for so long.

iG: Do you pretend to do other concerts besides the four already booked in the USA? Do you want to play other continents?
Tommy Stinson: There will be mores hows in the summer, in the States. We could go to Europe, maybe, but it is a lot of headache.

iG: Who have been drawing you attention in music lately?
Tommy Stinson: I haven't been listening to a lot of stuff recently, I've been working more on other's music, but I really like Queens of the Stone Age.

http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/cultura/musica/2014-02-14/guns-n-roses-queremos-fazer-um-novo-disco-e-uma-boa-hora-diz-baixista.html

Thanks Jarmo for letting me know about this interview!  : ok:

Nice read, thanks.

Ah, slightly disappointing. "Guns N' Roses is doing more tours than albums. We talk about doing a new record, but we don't know to when it is going to be."

Richard, Dizzy & DJ make it sound like there is an album. This does not. Sounds like the band would be happier recording than being on tour again.

Where is all the material from the Chinese sessions? I'd always hoped that Dj was working on stuff from then and it would be mixed& cleaned up and become the next album.

I know this is like beating a dead horse but...when they say "we want to MAKE a new album" does NOT mean there is no material done that can MAKE THE CUT for a new album.

Is the old discussion of "what would be better: a CD with leftovers or one made from scratch with these guys?"

Since I am one of those who would like to have the cake and eat it too, in an ideal world I'd love to have a new record done entirely by the current line up and a boxset-or-something-of-that-effect with the leftovers, demos and remixes from the Chinese sessions.

But I don't run the band nor do I know what really gets in the way of a new record. There is nothing I can do about it, so why beat my head over it?

I remember hearing Bono say that when U2 did 'Zooropa' while on the ZOO TV tour, it was actually a huge pain in the ass.

I could definitely see that.  You really have to be in two different headspaces, I think.  I don't know you can spend the day in the studio, and then put on your Superman outfit and do the night's show.

Disappointment in reading this!

Complaints, complaints, complaints

I'm not so sure.  At least he's talking about it.

Personally, I find the most disappointing answer to the new album question to be laughter.  Because, to me, that is all but saying the question is so damn ridiculous they can't believe you are even asking it.

True, I'm glad they're talkng about it, instead of laughing it off, but do you find it odd on how different the opinions are?  According to BBF, not one note has been recorded.  DJ, completely the opposite, and Tommy now seems to be somewhere in the middle. 

I think it might be semantics more than anything

I do believe Ron when he says they have yet to write together.  But I think when Tommy or Richard talks about a new album, they aren't claiming these are new songs.  That they were old songs they will touch up and put out.

My issue has always been that Ron says even THAT isn't coming anytime soon.

http://www.radiorock.fi/?vt=video&vid=347733

Just give them a break. Let them have their fun. They get to see the world and interact with the fans. Don't overthink it. They're just not that kind of band.

I would agree with you, but then if you dare call them your basic nostalgia act, people freak out.  But isn't that the argument you are making?

The argument you can sometimes get around here seems to be an insistence they are not referred to as a nostalgia act, a touring band, or a greatest hits concert type of operation.  Despite all the evidence pointing to just that, and no evidence to refute any of it.

I think if you want to make the "just let them do their thing" argument, you need to be OK with people accurately describing what "their thing" seems to be these days.

Is that unfair is some way?

Don't worry...no overthinking going on here.  This upcoming tour should be a good tell of what's to come.  Just killing some time until it gets here.

I agree.

The best case scenario would be even one new song played.  That alone will kill the argument they will never put out another album.  This is what everyone taking the position that its unfair to openly doubt another album will ever see the light of day needs to see happen.  It confirms their argument.

But I think even the structure of the setlist will be telling.  With little to no changes other than maybe one cover song swapped out for another cover song, its probably time to star to accept this might be all we are looking at going forward.

I don't think it's unfair.  The facts certainly indicate as much.  The recent tour(s) saw the setlist going more and more towards the hits, and only playing a handful from CD.  I think there's a reluctance to admit it because it's a criticism against the band (and that does not get taken kindly here)...and maybe some band members don't think that way, but the know there's not much they can do about it.

I said this earlier in the week, but I am so desperate that I would take even a jumbling of the same setlist as progress.

If the first concert has CD-WTTJ-ISE-MB opening the show, I think we will likely be able to pretty much guess the rest of the setlist, in order.

And I think it will clarify once and for all this band is done moving forward.  That is not some crime agaisnt the state, but I think people will need to finally table their anger over those that dare to point it out.

Agree, but I wouldn't hold your breath for any acknowledgment from here.  It will be countered with (a) you don't know the facts, (b) Axl has never said that, and (c) here, look at these quotes from 2011/12. 

And, for the record, I characterize this discussion as constructive criticism.  Actually, it's really not criticism...so much as just trying to reasonably ascertain what the future for the band is (based on the limited information we have) and manage expectations accordingly. 

Agreed on both points.

Of the whole interview, it's this that confuses me the most:  "But there are eight guys (in the band)  in several cities and it is hard to gather them all."

Why is it hard to gather them all?  It seems rather easy to gather them all for a tour(s). 

a new album would be so great ;D


wished wttj came back as an opener, beside the lack of new songs I think gnr has a fairly varied setlist.

Motley Crue (I love them) has also been playing a summat predictable setlist the last decade.

Already got my ticket for the farewell tour.

But I consider them a total nostalgia act.  I have always been a fan.  But I got a group of people going with that couldn't tell you anything about the Crue since 1989, and don't care to know.

In theory, GNR is still a viable band.

What would be cool if they was more creative doing old songs. Take 'their law' with The Prodigy.

Listen to how the intro (it last about a minute) has changed:

Original from the 90's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l62UTsRQ6qY
Live from the 20k's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GdAhopK8kY

That rocks \m/ :headbanger:
You can't do that much to wttj or scom-intro of course, but it would still be cool if they 'renewed' the repetoir.

Axl actually re-recorder afd and I am sure Tommy (punkrocker originally  ;D ) wouldn't mind.

If GNR is just a greatest hits nostalgia act, why don't they play more of their hits?

And they don't have that many hits to begin with, so why do they play for so long? Why don't they just go through the motions, play hits for 90-120 mins and go home? Why the marathon shows?

When they were finally touring the states and the album was 3-4 years old, why were they still playing 7 songs from Chinese Democracy every night? Isn't that the exact opposite of what a greatest hits nostalgia act would do? Most bands with a 25-30 year history that are just living off their hits will only play 1-2 songs off their new album, tops. Why has GNR made their latest album such a focus of their shows if they're a greatest hits nostalgia act?

If GNR is just a greatest hits nostalgia act, why do they play so many deep cuts? And so many obscure covers? And b-sides? And songs from the band members' solo albums? Etc etc.

None of this seems like the behavior of a greatest hits nostalgia act.

Why not just admit that they haven't released a follow up to Chinese on a timetable that you deem acceptable, and therefore you choose to paint them in the most negative light possible?

What are these "deep cuts" they are digging out?  I'm curious.

Oh, and most bands with a 25-30 year history tend to have more than 4 proper albums worth of original material, which is a whole other argument.

What are the "obscure covers"?  You mean The Rolling Stones and The Who?

And they don't have that many hits to begin with???  Really???  I'm somewhat perplexed by that.  They have many hits, all of which are played on tour.  Note: I'm not complaining about that, it's just a fact.

Last year, they played on average 3-4 songs from CD (CD, Better, TIL, Catcher).  That's not really a focus of the show. 

And why do they play so many solos, other band members songs?  I don't know.  To give Axl a break, showcase the other members.  They've been doing that forever so that actually points towards them being more of a nostalgia act.

Name one song the current lineup plays that they created?  Answer:  none.

All correct.

And yeah, I find the solos a bit tedious, but its obviously to give Axl a breather.

Ugh. How discouraging in regards to them putting out new music in any form "soon".  Fuckin' weak.  :'(

Well, I think you'd need your head examined if you thought we were getting anything soon.

Even as we go round and round and round on things they are doing poorly, or not even doing at all, I don't feel its ever done with a real thought the finish line is close.

Every single discussion about a new album could basically finish with "not like this is ever going to happen, of course."

Well there's your answer to the "they don't want to make a new album" statements made by some...

You go from "there's no new album and they don't even want to make one" to "there's no new album soon enough".  :hihi:




/jarmo

What's the problem? They haven't even started touring yet and people are already complaining about the set-list? :crying:

In my opinion, there are two sides to the coin of possibilities of what the next album would/could be.  First is that it will consist of the rest of the Chi Dem era tracks, or the album that (per Axl) was supposed to drop in fall 2009.  This album would have likely had The General, Atlas Shrugged, Soul Monster, Seven, Zodiac, ect. on it.  The other side is that it will consist of all the music that this lineup has been allegedly writing over the past 5 years.

I've never bought into the theory that the next album could be a mixture of both.  It just wouldn't make sense, from a sound/style perspective.  Tommy's comments here do not bode well for either scenario.  It's nice that he's hopeful about getting together and making something happen, but good intentions an album does not make.

The best case scenario here, is that these guys are not remotely privy to Axl's dealings with the label, and that he's negotiating to get the rest of the Chi Dem era tracks out under the radar.  Not very likely, but again, best case scenario for new music.

Otherwise, going by Tommy's statement, we're no closer to a new album than we were in fall of 2009, when again, the next album was supposed to drop.

Let me ask you this.

If you want to say that's premature, fine.  If you want to say wait and see before you criticize, fine.

HOWEVER...

If the shows start up and it is the same old, same old...are we good then?  And will you, and others, deem its OK to then be critical?

Because, to be completely honest, I'm having trouble visualizing getting that go ahead from some here.

I agree.

I think if we ever get anything (big if) its more of the same.  Tracks largely done by guys long gone with a few flourishes cut and pasted over top by guys like DJ, Ron, and Frank.

And while not my preference, I'll take it.  At least its something.

I'm actually encouraged Tommy was even talking about it.

But I'd hold off on this whole "there is your answer" routine you are trying to run on us here.  Its encouraging talk, yes.  At this point, just talk.  But a start.

Agreed.  Thing is, that "if" gets bigger with every new year and every new leg that is not in support of an upcoming album.  

But, yes, if it ever miraculously materializes I see it consisting of many of the aforementioned song titles touched up by DJ, Ron & Frank.

D-Generation X -

Appetite and Chinese only had a few singles each, so when you're playing 7-10 songs a night from each of those albums like GNR did from 2009-2012, many of them are deep cuts, not the hits. Same goes for Lies. It only had one single, so when they were playing 3-4 songs from it a night in 2012, that means a few were deep cuts, not singles or hits.

They don't play deep cuts from the Illusions, but over the last few years they've brought back songs the fans demanded like Don't Cry, Estranged and Civil War. All were singles, but hadn't been played in many years and sure enough were the songs fans were demanding the most in terms of Illusion songs that weren't being played on the 02 or 06 tours.

Yet if they give the fans what they want, suddenly they're accused of just playing the hits. Some people are just going to complain no matter what.

You claimed there was "no evidence" to refute your position that GNR is a greatest hits nostalgia act. I provided plenty of evidence, all of which you've now ignored. GNR's behavior is not consistent with that of a band content to play the hits and little else.

You see these bands all the time. Going on co-headlining tours, playing their biggest hits for 75 minutes and then going home.

The bottom line is that you want a new album and until you get one, you will complain about anything they do.

And the thing is, if you're not happy with how long it's been since Chinese, that's fine. Express that gripe. You're entitled to any opinion you wish. But let's not lie about the kind of show GNR puts on. It's a far cry from what a greatest hits nostalgia act would play.


Ginger King -

GNR plays plenty of covers that have never been released on any of their albums. They also brought back a cover that was a b-side on a 1988 EP that was only released in Japan (which would be considered fairly obscure).

GNR has a platinum selling covers album with several hit singles, not to mention Sympathy for the Devil was a hit as well. Yet, instead of playing one of those four hits, they opt instead to play other cover songs. Is that behavior consistent with what a greatest hits nostalgia band would play?

You say they play all of their hits on tour, but they don't play Civil War anymore, they don't play Yesterdays, they don't play Ain't It Fun, Hair of the Dog, Since I Don't Have You or Sympathy for the Devil, all of which were hits. Dead Horse, Garden of Eden, etc also received major airplay on MTV, yet aren't played.

GNR could very easily play 90 mins of hits and go home, but they don't. They play twice as long and play plenty of other material. This just doesn't seem like something a greatest hits nostalgia act would do.

Last year they were only playing 4 songs from chinese, but the album was five years old at that point. Any greatest hits nostaglia band would have been playing ZERO songs from their latest album at that point, yet GNR still insisted on playing four.

You say name one song the current lineup plays that they created . . . if that invalidates the band, then the UYI tour is invalidated by your logic as well.

And if the only thing that is valid to you is a band playing songs every current member helped write, that would mean GNR has never played a worthy show in their entire history based on your logic as Adler never had a hand in songwriting.

I would say just about every GNR concert, no matter who is on stage, from now until the end of time will include :

Jungle
Brownstone
Paradise
Sweet Child
Patience
Live And Let Die
November Rain
Knockin' On Heaven's Door
You Could Be Mine

And they should be.  People want to hear those tunes.  And all bands have songs that never leave.  You aren't going to go see the Stones and not hear 'Jumpin Jack Falsh' or 'Brown Sugar'.

But your defintion of "deep cuts" is pretty liberal here, come on.  'It's So Easy' and 'Nightrain' are not deep cuts.  'Think About You', now there is a deep cut.



Yeah, encouraging to see some of those brought back in 2011 onwards.  After being totally ignored in 2002, 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010.



This is so tired.  Seriouly, come up with something new already.  Its boring.


When they first started touring in 2009 and 2010, a larger number of CD songs were played.

Which makes sense, I think, as these were the songs the current band worked on.  It has to be more rewarding for them to play 'Shackler's Revenge' than it does 'Rocket Queen', no?  Its something you had a hand in creating versus covering a song done by others.

But, facts are facts.  As the neverending tour wears on, CD songs get sacrificed.  'If The World', 'Sorry', 'Shackler's Revenge', 'Scraped'.  These were the first cuts.  Removed for a few more random covers, and never at the expense of the older stuff.

Did this not happen?
 



First part : agreed.

Second part : tired, let it go already.

Third part : I can make a better argument they are looking more in the rearviewmirror that you can tell me they are glancing through the windshield.  Like it, don't like it, learn to love it, because that's the way it is.

Betting man?  They aren't coming back next month with "7-10 songs" from CD (using your own figures).  If I'm wrong, I'll say it.  If you are wrong...well, we shall see, hmm?

These weren't to me, but interesting nonetheless.

I believe the argument was that its hard to view the current group on stage as a viable band in the traditional sense because the current line-up has not written, recorded, or released anything. 

I'm not sure the point was ever made that the guys onstage can only play stuff they were all involved in creating.  I know I certainly never made that point, and I can't recall anyone else that did either.

MSL, shouldn't you be blackmailing the band, giving out their personal information, or leaking their copyrighted material?

Holy shit, is that really him?

Come to think of it, the split up responses to different people is how he posts.

lol

Your argument. Using that same logic, the original band wasn't a band until December 1986 when they released their debut EP and the Gilby lineup wasn't a band until after the tour in November 1993 when they released a cover album with no material written by said line up.... Interestingly enough, Gilby re-recorded Izzy's parts for many of the songs.


Anyway, I love the fact that you guys need to bring up the same fucking arguments into every other thread. There was one about a Facebook post which you managed to bring this up in and now here. Didn't have enough yet? I mean, you stopped replying in the other thread, I thought you were done, but no.... You just moved on to the next thread with the same "it's not a real band" shit.



/jarmo

No, I just specifically told you what my point was.

You not liking it and then putting words into my mouth I never said...well, there isn't a whole lot I can do about that.

But I'm damn sure not going to take it all that seriously.



I was responding to a question asked of me. 

If that steams your clams, tell people to stop asking me questions you don't like.

Side note, is that really MSL?  And you let him post here, after what he did??  Would not have figured that.

I'm not "liking" something that makes no sense. The same way you don't make sense when you credit an old manager for a tour in the 90s, but won't do the same in 2012-3! It makes no sense!
Because it just looks like you have double standards. One line up gets way with something while you criticize the current for the a very similar thing.




Excuse me?

I let an user whose identity I don't know post here? Gee...  For a person who hides behind an username, you should know how these things work.




/jarmo

See...this puts me in a bad spot.

If answer all these points you choose to re-litigate (for whatever reason), I prolong a conversation that only seems to upset you.  But if I don't, I'm what...ducking them?  At best, I'm pretty rude, just ignoring a guy.  These are shit options.

Give me something to work with here.  And here I thought we had such a nice day the other morning. 

I believe the first post I made in this thread was countering a feeling of pessimism and saying I found Tommy words encouraging.  And subsesquent posts were made in the same vein.

But 'cha don't quote any of THOSE suckers, do ya?





I'm asking if "bicycle handgrenade" is MSL.  If it is, I'd be pretty shocked you let him post here, after what he did.

So...him, not him, who cares, for a second.  Question : would you let MSL post here openly after what went down way back when? 

I just pointed out the fact that people change what the so called issue is depending on what's said. Tommy says they want to do something, it's bad. If somebody says it's not happening soon, it's bad. For some, it doesn't really matter what's being said, it's bad because the album's not out soon enough.

I mean, if the album was out last year, you'd still have people pointing out how long it took!




And as I pointed out, it's not always easy to identify people.
We don't exactly cater to the people wanting attention and whose claim to fame is to steal and fuck things up for the band. That's my opinion.
The reason falls under the phrase "supporting GN'R". I don't see that as supporting a band like GN'R. Sorry all Robin Hoods of the Internet.



/jarmo

Eh, that's a defeatist mindset.  Not a fan.

Look, I said on this thread's first page, I at least think its encouraging he answered and didn't just laugh it off.  I think that's a good thing.




That's what I would think would be your stance. 

Hey, I don't know if its him either.  I've posted with that dude on 3 boards.  Yet I still answered the last "bicycle handgrenade" post without even seeing the connection.  Those split up posts are how he posts.

If its not him, it's someone doing a homage.

Maybe but a similar thing happened to Chinese. It was "never coming out" and then it did so it was changed to how long it took....




/jarmo

Well, it took a little long.  That's wasn't exactly the most unsupported criticism of alltime.

But Tommy talking about new stuff is good.  Who cares what someone said on the internet 6 years ago? 

I think any of the other guys lighting a fire under Axl is nothing but a good thing.  No downside in those comments. 

DX--

You list nine songs that GNR has to play. They choose to play far more than that. They choose to play far longer than any nostalgia act would play. They choose to focus on their latest album far more than any nostalgia act would. They focus on non-singles far more than any nostalgia act would. They focus on covers, b-sides, solo material, etc far more than any nostalgia act would.

Which of those do you disagree with?

My claim is that anything short of a new record will disappoint you, do you deny that? It's okay to be impatient. There is no rule that you must be happy with the length of time between records.

But that doesn't mean GNR is mailing it in with a lame by the numbers hits package. Which is the agenda your pushing. The facts don't support your premise.

As for the "viable band" thing, by your logic, you're also suggesting the UYI tour was not a viable band either. I'm just looking for some consistency.

The UYI band worked on a 30 song collection they released before their tour.  Before that, the creative force behind the albums did AFD and the Lies EP.  This was was constituted their live show.  It was all them.

The current band, as in the guys onstage right now, haven't done anything like that yet.  We have half a band that worked on one album and 2 others that threw in some flourishes over top of their work on that one album.  The bulk of their their live set are songs they had zero to do with.  Its all still potenetial with this current band.

I find the comparison strained, frankly.  But Jarmo and I just went through this the other day and I'd just be repeating myself.

So by this logic, you'd preferred that they scrap ALL the CD material and we'd never have gotten an album in 2008.

Can you point to an instance where I have said that?  Nyet.

Ideally, I'd like an album done by these guys, yes.  These are the guys in our band right now.  Not Bucket, Robin and that crew.

Will that happen?  No.  There is no way in hell that is going to happen.  The best are we are going to do are CD era songs, primarily done by the same crew that did CD.  The only difference this time around would be DJ joining Ron and Frank throwing in a few flourishes here and there on those songs.  That's best case.

And you know what?  I'll take it.

But will an album like that speak to this current's band's potential and what they can do?  I'd argue no.  An album written and recorded by these guys would tell us that. 

DX--

Why did you absolutely refuse to respond to the following:

You list nine songs that GNR has to play. They choose to play far more than that. They choose to play far longer than any nostalgia act would play. They choose to focus on their latest album far more than any nostalgia act would. They focus on non-singles far more than any nostalgia act would. They focus on covers, b-sides, solo material, etc far more than any nostalgia act would.

Which of those do you disagree with?

Page 11 of the Facebook Update thread, MSL.  Its all there, me and Jarmo hashing this all out.

In this is an issue because?

I keep reminding you, your "it's not a band" theory doesn't make sense.

Gilby re-doing some guitar parts were already done by Izzy on cover songs made that line up a real band? Your defense seems to be "but the majority of the band that created Use Your Illusion was there".
Many of those songs were created before Matt joined the band. So, when Gilby joined, the people who were still in the band that created the Use Your Illusion material was Axl, Duff and Slash. Izzy was gone.

Matt and Dizzy had joined the band after many of those songs were created. How is that different to Bumble and Frank joining? Gilby joined after the albums were released, just like Dj.

Using your logic, the Gilby line up wasn't a band until they released a cover album because "real" bands play shows, create music and release it. Well, they didn't create music.... But I'm sure you'll be lenient on that considering this is the 1990s.



/jarmo

i had been assuming the band was having problems with the label, but based on these comments, tommy seems to imply that it's on the band to get it done.

total speculation of course, but it doesn't seem like they have been trying to get an album out. so if the band does decide to make a new album a priority, hopefully the record label will not do anything to delay it.

I was asked a question and responded to it.



No, you keep telling me you don't share my opinion.  Which is fine.  It ain't no bad day.  People disagree.  Way of the world.

Nowhere in anything I have said is there an edict all must bow down and accept my belief.  If you don't share it, you best change your damn mind right quick. 

Interestingly, I could make an argument you are doing just that, however.  Just some food for thought.

I agree.

As I, and several others have said, the label as boogeyman routine seems to be an excuse for the inactivity. 

But Tommy, Ron, or whoever else lighting a fire under Axl to get the show on the road is a good thing, and should be seen as such.

So do you agree that your logic pretty much disqualifies the Gilby line up as a real band?

Because to me, all the line ups that played together on stage have been a "real band". And I'm not talking about including Don Henley as a member of the band.




/jarmo

Are we really discussing what makes a real band, and what makes a real fan?  This is a little silly. GNR are touring, they have the most stable lineup of all time, they finally have competent management, Axl is happy and communications with his fans. They have (several) good websites now, fan clubs, a Blu-ray video on the way, and soon enough another record. Guns fans have every reason to rejoice.

No.  Covered several times now.


Super.  So who cares what I think?

We have a difference of opinion over a semantic argument that is unlikely to change no matter how hard you pound on the desk or call me mean names. 

Make your peace with it already.  There are times in life people express an opinion on something you do not share.  This is one of those times.

And I'm right with you.

I expressed an opinion on the matter (several days ago now) Jarmo doesn't agree with.  It happens.  He seems hellbent on getting me to recant my obvious heresy on the subject for whatever reason.

The band just announced domestic tour dates with hopefully more to follow.  A member of the band is actually talking new album.  That should be the focus.  Not how dare I have an opinion the moderator does not share.

i agree....definitely a good thing.

i was disappointed to read Tommy's comments, cause i had been giving Axl the benefit of the doubt regarding other forces (most likely the label) being the reason for no new album. but now it sounds like its just an issue with Axl not wanting to do it. Tommy certainly implies that it is up to the band (i.e. Axl) to decide when to put one out.

so now there's alot of mixed messages regarding new music from all members of the band. except for Axl. maybe he will give us an update on what he is thinking. in the chats a few years ago he had said something about "same bat time, same bat channel."

if there are plans to release an album of old recorded stuff, Axl could be working behind the scenes to get that out and it could happen relatively quickly (assuming no road blocks from the label).

but if they are planning on including new songs to be written by this band, we are probably looking at a release at least 12-18 months from now, and probably much longer than that. i'm keeping my fingers crossed that we hear a new song or 2 played live in the next few months. that would be a good sign, and i'd just love to hear something new.

I explained why I think your logic is flawed. So in short, what exactly of what I said is "wrong" in your opinion?

Do you disagree that half of the band that toured in 1992-3 weren't present when the initial creation of the Use Your Illusion albums started? They joined later and took part in the recording and touring. Except Gilby who "only" toured. He would later record for a cover album on which he didn't create new material with the band.

 :D


/jarmo

And I would say that is why you found it disappointing whereas I felt it was actually encouraging.

I have never for one second believed anything other than Axl being the one needing a little kick in the ass.  Never believed he's just moving heaven and earth behind the scenes and just can't get a break form all the forces of evil conspiring against him.  That's all nonsense, as far as I'm concerned.

I have been asking for years when the others eventually go to him and sort of prod him to get moving forward.  If that is what's happening now, that's awesome.  I celebrate it.  As fans, that's nothing but a good thing.  

I think, as usual, you are reaching to make a strained comparison if it means not having to say anything critical about the current situation.

Which is another topic we have covered rather extensively, occasionally to the annoyance of the others here.



I have said I find the comparison to the current situation to be flawed.  Said it several times now.

You don't agree.  Oh well.

It's fine, you don't need to agree. Isn't the whole point of a discussion to have somebody say something, and then you say why you don't agree. You give examples and so on.
Not that "you don't agree with me".

It's not the first time you think something that happened in the 1990s was good/ok while the same, or a very similar thing, nowadays isn't a big deal.




/jarmo

I agree with that concept, but in this case, we just have a fundamental difference here.

I think a band is judged for what they can do when they write and record an album.  You are willing to say that a bunch of other people who are long gone can write and record songs they left behind, and if a few new guys throw a few riffs over top of those songs...its the same thing. 

We just don't agree there and never will.  I'm sure we will have plenty to spar over going forward, believe me, but this one is pretty much all talked out.



Well, that's your jihad and not mine.

You seem to embrace this victim mentality where you are always arguing over perceived slights and other forms of unfairness towards the current band or management, as you see it.  I have very little interest in that area of discussion.  This is a rock band I like and follow, not my family.  You argue this stuff like I am insulting your family.

No.

Didn't say that at all!
I pointed out that Ron and Frank are part of the recording we call Chinese Democracy. It's a fact.

I also pointed out how in the past a new person joined the band and didn't "create" any original material with the rest of the band, yet you don't seem to label that particular line up as not being a "real band".





Nope. Wrong.

I just don't get what I see as double standards.
If you're gonna have that kind of attitude, at least be honest about it.

Either you judge the whole history of GN'R the same way, or you don't. And if you don't, then you should be honest and say so.
It's a bit difficult to take a person who lacks consistency in a discussion that seriously....  :)




/jarmo

Agree to disagree then. 

Just doesn't seem like much of anything can come down the pike without jumping to how the "haters" will react, as if that's what is important. 

Look at this very thread.  We have several people talking about Tommy's comments are a good thing (even known dissidents like myself) and where is your focus?  Forecasting how someone might have a problem down the line.  Or how you can't ever please everyone.  Or how some people were mean on the internet 6-8 years ago.

You seem very invested in keeping the dissension front and center, apparently so you can then rail against it.  That's a victim mentality.  Its unhealthy.

Haha. That's funny.

I'm merely pointing out the ridiculousness in some of the complaints I see. It's hard to take many of these comments seriously because the complain is something, then something changes and it becomes something else. I think I already posted that we went from some people claiming the band doesn't want to move forward, yet here we have Tommy saying the opposite. So that whole idea went down the toilet. Good thing right? Not for some, because the album isn't out yet... ;)

I see the absurdity in that. It's kinda funny. Does it bother me? No. I think it bothers some people when I point it out to them though.


I'm a victim? How's the possible? I'm not the one who's upset about the lack of an album.... Or get upset every time the band posts something about Internet trolls...
Ironic! :)

I'm not the one waking up every day going "Poor me! poor me! No new GN'R album today either!".
Nope. More like "Hell yeah! Exciting spring ahead!".



/jarmo

DX--

You are the one that has claimed there is no evidence to counter your claim that GNR is a greatest hits nostalgia act.

I provided ample evidence that countered your claim.

Since the evidence has been provided, you have absolutely refused to address said evidence or even address which of the points you disagree with.

So, you establish a faulty premise, declare that nothing could possibly contradict your position and when your position is contradicted, you refuse to acknowledge or address the information you previously claimed didn't exist.

Which then goes back to my earlier point. GNR's release schedule doesn't meet your personal expectations and therefore you've decided to lump GNR in with classic bands that play  the same 90 minute set of hits year after year. Even though nothing could be further from the truth.

? Nostalgia acts do not play 10-13 songs a night from their new album ever, let alone a year or two after release.

? Nostalgia acts do not play 7 songs a night from their new album ever, let alone three or four years after release.

? Nostalgia acts do not play 4 songs a night from their new album ever, let alone five years after release.

? Nostalgia acts show up, play the hits, and go home. They do not play for over three hours.

They do not play solo material from their members. They do not play random cover songs. They do not play deep cuts from their most recent album. They do not play deep cuts from their first album. They do not play deep cuts from EPs. They do not play b-sides from EPs. They do not skip out on playing some of their hits so that they have plenty of room in the set for material from their new album.

Etc etc etc.

The facts do not support your premise.

GNR may be a lot of things, but a jukebox hits machine is not one of them.

If you don't like the set, stay home. If you like the set, go. But whatever you do, please don't try to paint GNR as something they're not. When they start going out in the Summer to co-headline amphitheaters, play 70 mins of nothing but classic singles, and then go home, you let me know.

When they actually start behaving in a way that supports your premise, you let me know. Thanks.

Looks like a big loss for me then, huh? 

Well, coach 'em up, get 'em next time.

CD 2 is going to be amazing  :beer:

Nostalgia act is only when the audience is around the same age as the band, or slightly younger because they grew up on the music, the band members are out of high school while the singer's old enough to be collecting pension checks. At least with GNR they're all around the same age.  I think DJ was the last one to hit the big 4-0. Tommy's been in bands since he was a fetus.

Hey Tommy was telling the truth, sorta. We are getting a new album. It's just a live one that's all. Hey at least were getting a cd/dvd/blu ray of Appetite For Democracy while we wait for a new studio album.

Pretty sure he didn't mean a live album.   :hihi:


But if Universal is putting out the DVD/Blu-ray, maybe that could mean things between band and label are better?




/jarmo

Was thinking the same thing.  Hopefully, the label is acutely aware of what a great opportunity all the activity that is going on this spring will afford GNR and do their part to keep the momentum going. 

There's still a lot of time left in 2014, and a lot of finished music that could use their support.

There is. 

And few bang on about a new album more than I, I have to be fair here.  They are going to spend a lot of time this year on the road.  If they didn't want to finish up on the road and get right in the studio to rush something out for Christmas, I can't kill them for it.

Now, can they come off the road, take some time to de-compress and then get to work?  And maybe have this thing ready by next spring?  Yes, that, they can do.  And thinking they can do that is not at all unreasonable.

Hey ... if they get me the DVD and I can catch one show at some point (hopefully Bethlehem) with a new song maybe... i cant complain bout nuthin else for 2014...

an album.... seems unrealistic... but you never know

Yeah, agreed.

There does reach a point where you sound greedy.  Everything I hear in the works for this year sounds great.  You can't just ignore all that.

Why is it bad to want an album of new material?  It's been almost 6yrs.  I still love the band and am excited about all the stuff coming up, but I want new music to listen to.  That's ok. 

Who said it was bad to want an album of new material? Don't think I've seen anyone say that ever.

Well, I obviously agree.

But a consistent talking point is that if you want a new album...and then get word they they are playing some shows on the far side of the world...you are "never happy" if that doesn't knock your socks off.

The fact the two things have nothing to do with each other?  No matter.  Its just more "complaints, complaints, complaints" from your kind.  Some "fan" you are, mister.

You must learn the secret of life that Jarmos has taught all of us... talking about wanting a new album gets you nowhere   ;D

No, the secret of life is to not login onto a fan site every day complaining that you don't have a new album today either.  :P
Maybe you'll be a happier fan if you can just go with the flow and not let that one thing ruin your daily existence as a GN'R fan. ;)




/jarmo

I wasn't complaining...

making a joke about JDA's post... chill out man

Me too. Hence the smilies.  :hihi:

I'm not seriously trying to help people with their mental states. Not qualified for that.  :D



/jarmo

How about no "New Albulm" and just finish and release a couple songs via itunes (or whatever).  I think the "Album" is too big of a concept....and apparently they don't make as much $$$$ as they did in the past anyway.  Just finish two songs, get them out, play them, tour and make $$$$.  People would go crazy for Atlas and Silkworms finished and released or somthing like that.

Just keep the Machine rolling !!

Yeah, we can come up with release ideas all day long. It can be interesting to brainstorm, shoot ideas back and forth and so on.

But the reality still remains, Guns N' Roses are signed to a record company. They are not always interested in what's best for the artists and/or their fans... Unfortunately.
So if they don't see the point in releasing singles instead of albums, they won't.

Nobody here would say no to something like a new song every month of the year. But I bet the record company would rather put all those songs onto an album and sell it instead...



/jarmo

But does Axl?

::crickets::

Yeah, I don't really expect a serious answer.

We all know the answer, but few seem willing to say it out loud.  The best you get is a "we don't know that" or something similar.

Umm. The fact is that we don't know. You can belittle it as much as you want. It's a fact!
But it's not a popular answer for some of you. What's wrong with facts?

You're assuming things, yet your assumptions are as good as the next person's. Your assumptions are based on history, so because they didn't do something, it must mean Axl doesn't want to. Correct?

If that's the case, you're confusing not wanting to do something with not having the opportunity to do something. Not always the same thing...  For example, it's difficult for most people to ski in July (northern part of the world). Does that mean they don't want to once the first snow arrives?  :P




/jarmo

It has nothing to do with "facts".  As usual, its your selective take on the merits of speculation.

Speculation that Axl is not interested in doing anything new, backed up by years of inactivity : dangerous and irresponsible

Speculation he's working like mad to get something new out to us, not backed up by anything : A-OK

Come on, guy.  You are taking people to task for a practice you don't like, then using that same practice to tell them they are wrong.  Its crazy time.

If there is a silver lining here, you could point to the DVD that he at least tried to get in our hands.  That alone would lend credence to the idea he hasn't totally given up.  It doesn't put us any closer to the next album (if there even is one) but does refute, at least somewhat, he will never release anything again.

That's funny.

Your example is extreme.

I said, just because you didn't do something, doesn't mean you don't want to. How do you prove that to be wrong? You can't.
You can only repeat: But he didn't....

And yes, you're right about the movie. They want to get it out. But they couldn't premiere it next month.



/jarmo

He hasn't said anything on the subject of singles vs. albums.

I think it's moot point what his opinion is.  Even if he wanted to just put out singles or EPs periodically, instead of full length LPs, he doesn't have the freedom to do so being contracted to UMG.

Ali

Yes, but the overall point was that he does not seem terribly interested in either.

So before we go too far down the rabbit hole of what form the label would like to release new products in, I think first we need to figure out if Axl is even interested in doing it at all.

Last we heard on the matter was his chat 5 years ago where he said "don't know, don't care" when asked about future releases.  That, combined with no news of anyone doing anything towards a new album...well, that doesn't fill one with great optimism he's super pumped to get something out there.

If we can agree we are specuating either way (which I would say is accurate) the reality is that there is more in the "con" column than the "pro" column.

Last time he spoke about it was in March last year, before the Australian tour:


Before that, USA Today in 2012:





/jarmo

To be honest the only people who are interested in new GNR music is us, the diehards. I own like 10 copies of CD because bestbuy was selling them $1.99.

With the way the record industry is, how well would a new album do? Especially when today's sales are always compared to how records used to sell.

As Jarmo pointed out, "don't know, don't care" was not the most recent comment.  That was more directly after CD was released.  Is he super pumped about releasing anything?  I don't know.  He may not want to, or he may not want to under whatever terms dictated by the label.

Ultimately, though, and I think this point is lost on many people, it isn't just up to Axl.  It just isn't.  That's vague and unclear, but it is the truth.

I know people like black and white situations and simple narratives, but this is not black and white.

Ali

That doesn't mean an artist does not release music though, does it?  How come all these other artists keep doing it?  Are they all expecting to compete with Taylor Swift's numbers?

This is the only fanbase in the world that makes this argument.  We go out of our way to find reasons these guys never do anything.  Its crazyness.

"Um...its not 1991 anymore, you know".  That's what you get. 

Except no one is saying it is.  People are saying artists record and release music.  That's the job. 

Yeah.  Saying things like ?albums don?t sell nowadays? ?it?s not just up to Axl? ?he doesn?t have the freedom because the record company/contract? completely misses the point.

Even if all of those things are true, we still don?t know if he?s interested in releasing new music.  Comments from him (and I think we can agree that the buck stops with him so while it?s nice to hear comments from Tommy, DJ, Richard, etc., the final arbiter is Axl) over the past few years have been vague at best (?definite maybe?).  All doubt could be removed from a definitive statement?but that would be too easy.

So, while you?re pointing fingers at everyone else (record company, state of the music industry, contractual issues) don?t forget to look inward too. 

It's a non-answer at best, and outright deflection at worst.

Its tough to put a good spin on the inactivity I suppose.  But why is that your problem?  Changing the subject to the marketplace now versus 20 years ago.  Or the "bias" against rock bands (that seems to affect no one but Guns N' Roses).  And of course, the unseen forces of evil at the label that live to fuck them over.

I'd also throw "wishing for it won't get it any faster" in that pile.  Who has ever said that?  When has the argument ever been made that if we close our eyes and clap along with Tinkerbell that we can spur Axl into action?  No one has said that in the history of ever.



Yep.

Its like the fans become defense attorneys.  Their job is introduce whatever alternative theories that can get the spotlight off their client.

In my opinion too, sounds like everything we hear from Axl sounds like promotors, managers, etc...... All push for a reunion, and have ulterior motives, so Axl is probably like fuck it

It is the point.  He's tied to a company that he isn't on the best of terms of with, or all that fond of, if you look at his comments to Billboard in 2009.  If you had to work with them on any release, if you had to get their input and approval, and they either weren't responsive or supportive, can't you see how that could affect your desire to work on and put out a record?

You can't decouple the record company from the process of working on and eventually putting out a record when there is a contractual obligation tying the two entities together (GN'R, UMG).

Ali

That's fine if that's your stance.

But by your own admission, Axl is the one uninterested in doing anything.  He can stomp his feet and motherfuck them to his inner circle until God calls him.  If he is ever going to do anything again, he's going to have to eventually deal with them.  Correct?

So how salty can you really get when someone suggests they doubt he'll ever do anything again?  Nor can you really refute that he's cutting off his nose to spite his face, regardless of how principled you might find his stand.

I've never really understood people making this argument, almost suggesting there is some scenario where the label gets super remoreseful and begs for his forgiveness.  Not going to happen.  If anything further is ever heard from this band, is because Axl decided to stop holding his breath until he turned blue.

And while we?re on the topic of contract, can we stop with the notion (thrown around here often) that GnR?s contract with the record company is this iron clad agreement and they are forced to remain tied to the (evil) company in perpetuity?

There is a concept in the law called bad faith?meaning, even if two parties are contractually related, if one of the acts in bad faith (i.e. deliberately acts contrary to the agreement or takes action to prohibit the other party?s compliance) that is a breach and the non-offending party has the right to terminate the contract (or sue for damages).

How could that play out here?  Well, presumably GnR?s contract requires them to produce a certain amount of albums/songs/concerts, etc.  And it requires the record company to take certain actions (promote/market the band, advance money, etc.)  If GnR did submit an album to be released, and the record company said no, or the record company is doing things that intentionally interfere with the band?s purpose (e.g. refusing to promote anything, pushing for a reunion), well then wouldn?t this be grounds for breach???  Yes, it would require lawyers and litigation, but the alternative is to remain slavishly bound to your enemy the record company, and forced to march to their beat.  Sorry, but that doesn?t really sound like Axl to me?he doesn?t strike me as a ?yes man? or one who would just sit there and take it?especially from a corporate conglomerate.  I mean, other bands have been able to get out of their record contracts, right?  I say that without knowing if it?s true, but I have to imagine it has happened before.

Before folks crucify me for this, know a few things:  (i) I (obviously) have no idea the terms of GnR?s contract, and thus am completely speculating as to its terms and the rights and obligations of the parties, (ii) I would really love to read it, and (iii) I was really hoping to be getting updates from the H&H fest tonight, so my little diatribe is merely filling the void left by the show?s cancelation.

It's a stance.

I didn't see any suggestions that he won't do anything again.  Just that they don't see any signs of him doing anything now.  Which is fair.  But, to be honest, how the fuck would we know if Axl was writing songs or having conversations with the label about getting a record out?  We wouldn't be able to refute those things.

There's no suggesting remorse on the behalf of the label.  Just that if and when two entities don't see eye to eye on a situation, what develops is an impasse.  If there is no legal way around that impasse, or if there are continued efforts to work around the impasse, things can appear at a standstill.  Maybe that's what is occurring now. 

Ali

MIA tried several times to release a record with Interscope and they rejected her record several times before finally releasing it.  No lawsuit occurred there for reasons unknown.

If you think it is easy to get out of record contract, I suggest you watch the documentary Artifact about what happened when 30 Seconds to Mars tried to do just that.

That's a cautionary tale if I ever saw one.

Ali

Could not agree more. 

If you want to tell me GNR is not a super high priority to them, I'll agree.  But so much so that if Axl wanted to put something out, they'd shut it right down?  Because that is what we are told to believe. 

That's a little much.

Just break this down by numbers.  They shelled out $14 million bucks to record all this material.  The work is largely done.  You just eat that? 

I?m not saying it?s easy to get out of?what I?m saying is if one party is in breach of the contract, then it does provide grounds for terminating the contract.  Presumably, the contract involves both parties working towards putting out some product.  Let?s assume that the product is a new album.  If everyone is working towards that goal, then you?re right, it would be hard from GnR to terminate.  However, you imply that the record company has it in for the current lineup, has blocked a new album, etc.?if that?s true, there would seem to be an argument for the band to terminate.

Didn?t 50 Cent get out of his contract with Interscope recently?  How was he able to do it?  It?s not impossible to do, and using it as an excuse for no new album doesn?t make sense, IMO.

There is an glaring inconsistency in my stance.

I'm the same guy that never expects Axl to ever be the bigger man or mend any fences with Slash.  Yet its basically what I am suggesting with the label.  There is an inconsistency there, I realize.

But, bottom line, if he never talks to Slash again...so what?  This is his livelihood we are talking about.  And presumably why one becomes a recording artist.  Can he really write all that off the same way he has Slash?  Based on the same rationale that he has nothing to apologize for and the other side needs to reach out?

Oh, I'm sure its a bitch.

But I think there are those of us that want him to make the best of a bad situation.  Work something out with the label just to get something out, and in the process, fulfill another part your obligation to the contract.  Speed up your freedom.

Every journey begins with a single step.  Axl needs to take that next step and keep things moving forward.  If he just sits and pouts, the situation will always be the same.

Correct.  I think the record company probably is apathetic about the current lineup, and doesn?t really give a shit what they do.  They probably don?t want to spend millions to get another album out?but aren?t the CDII songs already in existence?  How much more cash would it take to get to the finish line? 

And if the record company is reluctant to part ways because of the untold millions that would be made if a reunion were to happen, then can?t the parties agree, as part of release from the contract, that if a reunion ever happens, UMG will be their record company?  I mean, you?d think Axl would offer that deal, considering a reunion is never going to happen. 

Point being:  there are creative ways to get around any problem if you want to.

This is very interesting.  I wonder if that would work.

I do agree they probaly don't give much of a shit about the current line-up, but aren't giving up their interest in the breand in case a miracle occurs and they re-unite.  That's smart business.

If you are Axl, and that gets you out from under them, aren't you 'bout it, 'bout it?  Yeah, rights to the reunion album.  All you, buddy.  He signs that with one hand as he makes a jerking off motion with the other.

Again, you should see the movie 30 Seconds to Mars tried to terminate their contract deeming it unlawful since they had been under contract for more than seven years (nine years).  They are still under contract with EMI. That tells you how that turned out.

As far as 50 Cent, he admittedly leverage his friendships to be able to pursue new projects on a new label.  But, Interscope still retains the rights to release and market his back catalogue AND he is still under the Universal Music umbrella.  So, he really never left UMG.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2014/02/21/50-cent-explains-how-he-left-interscope-debuts-funeral-video/

Ali

Easy to say, but maybe not so easy to implement.  That sounds like an interesting idea, but who knows how practical that would be to implement. 

Regardless, I've always thought that the potential reunion could be a factor in not wanting to let GN'R go.

Ali

Whatever our disagreements are about how to proceed and what is even possible, I trust we can all agree that the current course is no god damn good.

Ultimately, I do think we are all after the same thing.

The current course has resulted in GNR's brand being resurrected, their reputation rebuilt and their image restored.

The media left them for dead after the release of Chinese Democracy.

The current course has resulted in headlining slots on major festivals all over the world, giving the band a great chance to expose the general public to the current lineup.

The current course has resulted in highly publicized residencies, giving the band a great chance to expose the general public to the current lineup.

The current course has generated a few years of positive momentum for the first time in decades.

So no, we don't all agree that the current course is no good. The current course has been very good for the band and very well could turn out to be very good for fans that would like this band to thrive for years to come.

Makes no sense to release an album if nobody is going to care. The current course is making sure that when they do release a new album, a lot more will care than would have if a record had just been thrown out there a year or two ago.

This.  I turn blue in the face trying to explain to the average casual GnR fan how successful they continue to be & they have an amazing, cohesive band that consistently plays 2.5+ hr amazing shows all over the world with. I have only met a handful of fans, unless they are hardcore that even are aware there currently is a Guns n Roses band that are very much active and successful beyond what they remembered in the early nineties- the most I've heard from a few casual fans are vague comments about how Buckethead took Slash's place. Most people just assume I'm seeing the original band when I tell them I'm gonna see them in a couple months just a couple hrs. away in PA.  :confused:

The minority of people who are aware of what's up with GnR though are always blown away by this lineup & amazing shows!  :peace: 

So you see a lot of people talking about Guns N' Roses in 2014?  And not just the same few hundred of us on the same few internet message boards?

What you are describing here is an operation with a good marketing plan that is succeeding.  That's your read?

You want people talking about GN'R?

What's your recipe to get that to happen?
Let me guess, does it have something to do with the release of an album?





/jarmo

No, that would obviously be crazy.

Look, I'm just reacting to the premise MSL laid out.  It's certainly not mine.  I don't really know how to react, other than to say it sounds familiar.

Like Mitt Romney's campaign in the the last week.  Who assured us to not believe any of those other polls (the ones they didn't control) telling us bad things.  Victory was at hand. 

Or Vince McMahon talking about the XFL.  Dismissing every inconvenient truth that Bob Costas threw at him.  Insisting everyone was missing the point, because they were "brand building".

We know how things turned out for Mitt Romney and the XFL.

If you honestly and truly believe that anything done in the past 5 years has led to the "GNR brand being resurrected, their image rebuilt, and image restored", or that they are laying the groundwork for a better reception to a new album, then nothing I say will make a dime's bit of difference.  All I can bring to the party is facts on the ground.  If the bouncer has been instructed not to let such people in the door, I guess I'm stuck.

What's your definition of "people talking". What kind of magnitude are we talking about here?

Because correct me if I'm wrong, but when a rock band releases an album, only a small part of the world talks about it. If you want to engage the rest, you need scandals....




Let me ask you this. Would you say the last few years of successful touring has damaged GN'R in the public eye?
For example, every time you encounter somebody saying GN'R always cancels shows and are not reliable, you can tell them the facts and prove them wrong.
Is that a bad thing in terms of an image?


Some of us can see the difference while you refuse.

For example, the Governors Ball gig did a lot of good for GN'R. It was just one gig, but the way it went showed a lot of naysayers how wrong they were. Just one example of one gig making a difference.




/jarmo

Well, that's pretty much my question too.  Where is this happening?



Truthfully, I don't think the general public has given GNR much thought in the past few years : good, bad, or indifferent.

Its why I made the example about the political campaign.  Campaigns often exist in their own bubble.  If you never venture outside it, you will always only accept the truth you want to hear.  Which tends to be a bit more rose colored glasses than just about everywhere else.

MSL says the GNR brand has been resurrected, its reputation rebuilt, and its image restored.  That's his premise.

Really?  Because I'd invite he or anyone that shares that belief to call up any GNR Youtube video and read the comments.  Or the comments under any GNR article.  Its a bloodbath.  And these are people that were already Guns N' Roses fans.  If you've lost the majority of them, is there a great argument that the public at large is way onboard?  Or that something new has happened in the past 5 years to bring people around?

Ultimately, I am not making the argument that they have done anything to hurt themselves in the past 5 years.  But I very much challenge the assertion they have laid all this great groundwork and has people fired up about Guns N' Roses in 2014 and beyond.  Its just not reality.

Do you really think a new album of songs done by people out of the band for over 10 years is really going to get things going in a real way ?


I want it... because i love Axl's work , but is CD 2 gunna change the music scene? not at all, its gunna get the same criticisms the last album had

with that said I just cant understand the process on their part of the label's part.... status quo cant be good in any way for either of them

You are correct. The general perception of GNR sucks... is it fair... yes and no

but they do puts on lots of shows outside of the U.S. that sell lots of tickets... so the GNR name still carries a lot of weight

Its often suggested that Axl feels betrayed by the label and whatnot.  Fine, let's accept that premise.

Logically, the first thing that has to happen is a conversation about the future.  An airing of grievances on both of their parts.  Axl's frustration at things he didn't feel were done, and the label's unhappiness he ran off and pouted for a year after the album came out. 

That first conversation is going to suck, no matter when you have it.  But have it and get it out of the way.  How else will you ever move forward?

I'm asking you, what you're expecting.

Your goal seems to be to get people talking because in your opinion there's no talk.
I'm just curious where this talk would appear. CNN? Talks shows on radio? TMZ?





There you go again. The general public might not care about anything that's not on TMZ.
It's a veeeery broad group of people.





The reality is that some people don't give a fuck about facts.
I don't know how often I see comments like "if Axl even shows up" regarding shows being announced. That's not based on facts. That's based on somebody being so thick headed or lazy that they just refuse to take in new information.


GN'R is in a better place today than it was say five years ago. To deny it is just ignorant.
Just because part of the general public refuses to see it doesn't mean they're right.

GN'R putting out a new album isn't gonna make the Youtube trolls and their online buddies stop having wet dreams about their high school days.... ;)

 :)


/jarmo

I don't think you can. 

Let me clarify.  I don't think our boy is willing.

Suggestions?  How about a proper interview with a legit outlet about the future of the operation?  In other words, no more circle jerks with Del where you hand him a list of pre-prepared questions to read back to you.  And even more importantly than that, talk about the now and the future.  No more talking about Slash.  About all the people that done you wrong way back when.  None of that is forward thinking or productive

Talk about the current band.  What they will be doing.  How excited you are to be working with them.  Why you, the home reader, should be interested in what is to come.  This is marketing 101.  All it takes is some willingness to give a shit about your own business.



Never once have I said a word about TMZ. 



Ah, but MSL's argument is that is exactly what they have done.  I didn't introduce such an indefensible premise.  Go yell at him.

You mean an interview with something like the L.A. Times (http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/articles/showarticle.php?articleid=185)? USA Today (http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/articles/showarticle.php?articleid=183)?

I'm surprised you missed all the people talking in 2011 and 2012 because he did those interviews.
Or maybe the "impact" you're expecting is not necessary a possibility in today's age when people get their news from so many places....

You still act like he hasn't made any interviews since 2009....


No, you didn't mention TMZ. I did. As an example of what the "general people" you want attention from, is paying attention to.
Is the general public talking about Motley Crue's new album? No, there's no new album. They're talking about Nikki getting married....




/jarmo

WOW....lots of opinions in this thread.

GNR is playing shows, which in my mind means the machine is still rolling.  = a GOOD THING!!

I would love to hear new stuff, and continue going to shows and then hear more new stuff and continue going to shows.
However the way the industry/contracts/record companies work is not for me to decipher.  I just love hearing new stuff and old stuff as much as I can and....
I just hope the machine keeps going!

The DVD would have been (or will be) a real nice way to show people who GNR is now and how amazing those Vegas shows were and will hopefully be again.

I think the TMS and Kimmel interviews were also examples of some buzz....

Look at that bit on bold.  Is that productive?

To paraphrase John Bender, Axl couldn't ignore him if he tried.

I just really think due to the history of the GNR name it doesn't matter what they do going forward as far as changing perceptions or having an impact in mainstream culture

the past is just impossible to match in any way ...not that they need to... but its just natural to always compare, especially since the name is the same



you just gotta hope some how some way we squeeze another record out of our guy

I don't know now much business it would have done, but it would have been nice if we had a product that showed the current band and what they can do.

Hopefully, it will come out eventually. 

The average guy in the street will always consider Guns N Roses to be the guys we grew up with.  That will never, ever change.

About the best Axl can do is stop talking about those days and shift his focus to his current guys.  Tell me about them.  Tell me about what you are working on.  Tell me about the chances of me hearing an honest to god new song for the first time in 10 years.

Please, for the love of God, no more segues into stories about when Slash said that meant thing to you that time in 1989.  That's over and done with.

I dont care if he bashes Slash in an interview.... blaming him 20 years later for his inability to write lyrics....Ha i mean...I dont know..

i dont think any of that matters...but ur right..he would be better served pumping up the newer players rather than that... because thats what will get the headlines...
the cloud of Slash is just overbearing sometimes over what they are trying to achieve... even if you hate the guy because Axl does ... you cant deny the cloud he brings over the whole operation due to his immense fame

I know this has been said before....

but to get back on the track of the thread..

the fact that Tommy Stinson or others don't have an equal footing with Axl in the business end ... they cant push towards anything... this to me is the number 1 problem in getting another album or albums

no matter how many times dj ashba says we want to, or we are gearing towards something new... I have as much as influence on it happening as he does....

Random interviewer : Have you had a chance to hear Slash's latest album?

Axl : No, and I don't care.  We haven't worked together in almost 20 years.  He does his thing, I do mine.

Random interviewer : Do you think you guys will ever patch it up, at least to be civil to each other.

Axl : Who knows?  But who cares?  Let me tell you about my current band...

This is hard to do?

Why didn't you bold the parts where he talked about the current band?




/jarmo

Because I'm out ta get him.  But I won't break him.

The conversation was about stopping talking about Slash.  Since the interviewer says they were expressly asked to refrain from bringing him up, only to have Axl do it himself and then fixate on it, I felt it illustrated exactly what I was talking about.

So, let me guess this straight. You want more people to talk about GN'R. And to achieve it, Axl needs to talk to the press, but not mention Slash?

Is that close to your "master plan"?
So the reason why more people are not talking about GN'R today is because he mentioned Slash in those interviews?


People were talking about Axl and GN'R even during those years when he didn't say a word. So the answer doesn't seem as simple as "do more interviews but don't mention Slash"...




/jarmo

I think that conversation is pretty talked out. 

Once you say that one of you will be dead in a box before you speak again, I think that qualifies as settled business. 



Who ever said that?  Sounds like you are the one saying that. 

Personally, I don't see the connection you are trying to make.  Can you expand on it?



He was certainly able to get some mileage out of the Howard Hughesesque, "what ever happened to that crazy bastard" mindset that was out there.

But that was a one shot deal.  If you ever intend to release another album, you can't bank on the mystique of being gone for so long.

He's been out there.  He's been around.  The next album, if there even is one, will have to be sold on its own merits.  If he can be bothered.

I'm just trying to understand and connect the dots.

Because I don't see what you're trying to say here. It's all over the place.
None of us are in the music business, so we're just fans speculating. Or am I wrong?

You want more people to talk about GN'R. Which requires publicity. An interview can get publicity. But you have "rules" for the interview. Is that because the publicity gain would be better if your rules were followed? And if so, what are your qualifications to make that statement?


I personally think that Axl gets publicity any time he talks. The subject doesn't matter. He's a fascinating guy. The fact that he doesn't give interviews to every newspaper makes him more fascinating.

Look at his tweets about the Superbowl half time and the giraffe! How do you react to that? Are you saying those tweets were not good for anything? I mean, people were talking.... Google "Axl Rose super bowl" and check the results. People were talking!

Yet here you are saying nobody talks about GN'R. Sure, you can say sometime like "they only talked about Axl". But doesn't most people associate one with the other?




/jarmo

I thought the tweets were a good idea.

I have long made the argument that those things are smart and take less than 5 minutes of his time.  Good move.

Say what??  ???

So not only do youze want Axl to LEGALLY agree to something that he is vehemently opposed to (reunion) because he'll have his fingers crossed behind his back while he signs the contract BUT youze also think that all the legal eagles at the record company (or whomever) are so inept that the contract they're having him sign won't include language guaranteeing (forcing) something reunion-esque??

If they could contractually force a reunion, they'd have done it long before now.

Hard as it might be to hear, the label's main (and perhaps sole) interest in the GNR is that hell freezes over, Axl heart grows three sizes like The Grinch, and he reunites the band.  They aren't missing out on that payday.  Certainly not after sticking with Axl and all his bullshit.  They paid him 14 million dollars to take the better part of a decade to release an album that made zero impact.  They are hanging on to him in case he wises up, as they see it.

But if that is their concern, fine, sign it over.  Rights are yours, fellas.  They are already just hanging in there on a hope Axl has a complete personality transplant.  What's different here?

But if it gets them to let him go, so he can be free to release all this new music he so badly wants to, except for those bastards at the label holding him back (which is the talking point you get)...why are you not trying whatever you can to make that happen?

The reason that they haven't been able to contractually force a reunion is because Axl isn't stupid enough to have signed a contract ... cross his heart, hope to die, stick a finger in his eye... containing anything that would even suggest it were a possibility!!!

I don't think you are following me here.  I am not suggesting Axl signs a contract to reunite the band.

What I *am* saying, is that their main interest in him at this point is hanging on in case there is a reunion.  And they are not going to let him out of the contract and lose out on that payday.  Which makes perfect sense

But if they were willing to let him out, but retain their rights to any possible reunion album...what does Axl give a shit?  The reunion is never happening.  He is signing away a possibility that will never come to be.

This would free him up to release stuff on his own, or with some other label, or however he wanted.  This would challenge the narrative that were it not for his sadistic tormentors at his current label, we'd be swimming in new GNR music. 

It would at least clear it up.

I understood you the first time and what you're suggesting is stu..... is not the smartest thing for Axl to do.


Here's where your thinking goes awry.  AXL DOES GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THIS!!!! He's stated so over and over, in no uncertain terms ... NO REUNION EVER!!! 

Gypsy you are missing the point...

dX fully understands the chance of a reunion ever happening

He's expressing that the label holding out for one is not necessary..they can let Axl walk without fearing missing out

Yes everyone understands that a reunion is never going to happen because Axl has made his feelings on the matter totally clear.  So clear that I can't imagine any scenario where he would even entertain the thought of signing a legal document suggesting any hint of the possibility of it ever happening.  No way.  No how.

Whoa, time out.

Is your argument that Axl is too...I'm guess you're going to go with, "principled", to sign something like that?  That even going through the motions for business purposes, he can't bring himself to do that?

Hell with the pressure, he's not caving in?  That sort of thing?

To answer your question:  YES that's what I'm saying.

"principled"  That's our Axl!!! :hihi:

And this makes sense to you?

It isn't a matter of making sense to me.  It's just the fact of the matter.
"fact" meaning statements made by Axl expressing his opinion on the topic.

And I could express an opinion that there's a little man in my television that will control my thoughts, so I best make a hat out of aluminum foil and bacon grease.

You know what people would say about me?  That DX...he seems a little off.

And those people would be correct.

Those people might seem correct to some (especially to the advertisers who implanted subliminal messages into your TV) ... BUT to you .. in your mind .. in your very being .. that aluminum foil hat with bacon grease is exactly what you know you should make because no one, not that little man in your television or anyone else, should have control over what you think or do when it comes to something you are so vehemently opposed to.

Don't let other peoples' opinions or ulterior motives force you to do (or not do) anything you feel is detrimental to yourself.

OK.  Suppose I accept all that.  Axl is fighting the power and good for him.  Fine.

The result is that he and the label remain at odds for the rest of his days, preventing anything else from ever getting out.

So, in your opinion, when someone then says that Axl is not interested in releasing new music, are they wrong?  Can you really get your back up when, by your own rationale, he is perfectly justified not doing anything proactive to improve that situation?

I think Gypsy has a valid point.  Axl has never wavered in his stance that a reunion will never happen.  Signing some kind of document that alludes to that even being a remote possibility may be distasteful to him.  I'm not saying that's good or bad.  But, when you are absolutely dead set against something, attaching your to name to a document that concedes what you hate, a reunion, is a even a faint possibility, may be difficult.

Ali

Why all the drama?  :crying:
Axl said he intends to put out another album, we know he works on his own time frame.
Axl will put out another album, it probably won't happen as soon as you like.
Stop pretending he's committing some capital crime.

Well, not if you are interested in moving forward with your life and career.

Look, this is all wildly hypothetical.  Who the hell knows if this could even be a thing that happens?  I don't.  We are just spitballin' here.

But its troubling to hear you guys say that even if it were a real world scenario, you think it all makes perfect sense to play it that way.  Sign an ultimately meaningless peace of paper and have a career, or "not give in" and waste the rest of your life in a stalemate as you show those basterads, you show them good.

That makes no sense to me.

This is only one theory though.  I'd be equally arguing just sitting down and mending fences with the label to continue that way should be a possibility.  

What's important here is progress.  At least to me.  

Not making excuses why its not only cool, but also totally rational, to throw the rest of your life away.

Yes.  IMO, they are wrong.  Just because he is adamant on this ONE issue (reunion) does not mean he is "fighting the power" or "not interested in releasing new music" or "not doing anything proactive to improve the situation."

It's ONE issue.

Axl has stated that he's interested in releasing more music... definitely maybe.
Maybe Axl had offered to release in the past 5 years all the material that will fit on CD2 thru 99 with a promise that CD5 thru 99 will contain all and only new material by the current line-up. Who knows?

The band has been out & about touring the world in the years since CD was released so there's obviously no problem with him holed up in a cave or anything.  (My point being that the band is in no way inactive.)

If the problem is this ONE issue, maybe it's the label that needs to let it go?

Its a conversation to pass the time.  

In a few days, hopefully, we have an exciting show to talk about.

Let's not get too bogged down in the details of a purely a hypothetical situation that might not even be on the table.

The overall point is that nothing will change so long as "definite maybe" is as in depth an interest as you take in your own career.

And you are free to be in the "Axl has a plan.  I ain't even bovvered" camp.  If that gets you through...hey, salud.

It doesn't get it done for a lot of us though.  Give us something to work with here.

But it seems that the ONLY thing you (and maybe the label) will even consider as "something to work with here" is if Axl agrees to something/anything about the possibility of a reunion.

What else is viable in your opinion?


On this we can agree.  : ok:

No, no, no.  That was one scenario I threw out there.  That, frankly, I'm starting to wish I hadn't. 

So forget it.  Forget that whole agreeing to the rights of a reunion thing.

What is viable to me?  Anything.  Literally anything.  I don't even truly accept the label as boogeyman theory.  But I'm willing to give people the courtesy of accepting the premise, but at the same time, having a discussion about how to deal with it.

And in that situation, if your answer is that the lack of progress on ANYTHING new is a fractured relationship with the label, you have to do something about it, no?  Will it just magically fix itself one day?

My whole point here is that something needs to be done to repair that, if you are of the belief its what is holding him back.


No doubt.

We are all fellow fans, just passing a slow Tuesday night.

You don't truly accept the label as boogeyman theory but you don't seem to have a problem with the theory that Axl is the boogeyman and has offered nothing to meet the label half way??

Even if Axl threw the label "that" reunion bone, doesn't the other members have a say in that decision, one has already resisted cooperating with Axl recently  ::) It aint gonna happen....

Or to put it another way, my speculation is dangerous and unfair, but yours is all good in the hood.

Ultimately, we don't have proof of either theory.  But I do reject that we should accept one over the other, simply because it paints Axl in a better light. 

It seems to come down to what you want to believe.

No where did I say or suggest that your speculation was "dangerous and unfair" or that I'm 100% correct.
(though I do think that you're a bit melodramatic suggesting that Axl is not "interested in moving forward with [his] life and career" because he's more than likely opposed to your 'if there's a future reunion' contract idea.)

Exactly.  And IMO that's the way it should be with these (or most) types of business dealings.  A lot of maneuvering (and/or manuring) goes on behind the scenes that are just part of the process and don't mean a hill of beans at the end of the day.

But you don't seem to cut Axl any slack at all.  Whereas you think he should cow down to the suits.


And that's why on the sixth day God created Jarmo and fan forum discussions.  : ok:

I know it seems like that, really, I do. 

I guess the best way to put it is that my prime concern is always moving forward and seeing this current band succeed.  That is primary to me.  And if that means that Axl has to eat some shit, or schmooze a little bit, well...that's life in the big city.  I place little to no importance on Axl having his feelings hurt.  So when I hear arguments like he felt he was disrespected and whatnot...please.  You're a grown man. 



I will always be swimming upstream at this site, and I recognize and accept that.  But I like posting here because its different than the other sites.  Its a different perspective.

But the bottom line is that I am never going enter into a discussion like this from a starting point that Axl is obviously not at all in the wrong, so let's go from there.  Sometimes, yeah, he's in the wrong.  Its no crime to say so.

I think even Axl agrees with this sentiment.

Don't know who argued that Axl feels disrespected or whatever but it sure wasn't me.
Again, I think Axl would agree with your/this sentiment here also. 


I think you're misconstruing my (and maybe Jarmo's & other's) perception of your posts.
I can only speak for myself but IMO you seem to genuinely be a fan of GNR (past, present, future).
But I also believe your posts are 95% negative towards the present and future GNR.  Playing 'devil's advocate' is all well and good (especially on a fan forum) but when the majority of your posts are negative toward Axl and the current line-up then some people [here] are going to perceive you as just another troll.
 

Yes, sometimes he is wrong.  But sometimes he is right, too and might even actually being doing what he believes is in the best interest of the band and the fans.

Yes, all very true.  And I can roll with that.

In terms of how my posts come across, here is what I try to do.  Probably no great secret, but I don't share a lot of the views and opinions of the gang here.  But I will often accept their premise for the purposes of having a conversation and ask some question based on that premise.  The result is obviously that is seems like I'm looking for a fight 24/7.  I'm not.  I'm just trying to see where they are coming from.  And yes, sometimes with the hopes of illustrating that some of the theories I'm presented with don't hold up.

I do not consider myself a troll for a few reasons.  First and foremost, I don't hate the current band or pine for some reunion that will never happen.  But the biggest reason is that anyone here can see what I type on other sites.  I truly feel I make a concerted effort to tone it down around here and color within the lines.  I may challenge certain assertions, but I try to do it in a somewhat respectful way.

I'm not saying that there isn't some cost to that stance.  Don't mistake my words as implying that.  It's just an attempt to discuss and understand a hypothetical stance.

For all we know, an agreement that should there be a reunion, the band would work with UMG may not be so clear cut.  We have to keep in mind that Axl owns the rights to the band name Guns N' Roses.  So, if there were to be a reunion there are two options.

Option 1:  The old band could be brought back as employees, which would just mean a change in band membership.  What if it isn't a full reunion?  What if only Izzy and Duff come back, or only Slash and Duff?  Could that leave some ambiguity as to what is and isn't a reunion and therefore subject to the terms of this hypothetical scenario?

Option 2:  The old band, either in part or full, are brought back as partners and sign a new partnership agreement.  How does that change the applicability or legal validity of something Axl signed when Guns N' Roses was operating with him in sole control of the band name?

So, let's just take a step back and consider that this hypothetical agreement, while an interesting idea, may be extremely problematic in terms of practicality, before going too far down the road on this discussion as this being a legitimate option.

Ali

All very true, Ali.  And very vaild.

This all goes back to my point I made several pages ago:  there are creative ways to work out any problem (if you want to).  From the information that we've been able to see, it's not clear that either party wants to.  On the one hand you have "definite maybe" from Axl, and radio silence from the record company.  That's what we know.  Now it becomes a matter of who is more at fault...and this is where is gets thorny for folks.  You have people that feel the record company is entirely (or mostly) at fault, people who feel Axl is the main hold up, or (my personal opinion) it's somewhere in between.

I'm sure Axl does have songs in the queue or that could be finalized pretty quickly...but is tinkering with them like he did with CD and, while he may have intentions to release them at some point, doesn't feel like he needs to set any deadline on when/if that happens.  And then you have the record company that is apathetic to CDII, and so they're perfectly fine with Axl's approach.

I'm really hoping for a kickass show in Rio tonight so that we can focus on the now.  There's been more recent activity lately, by Axl and other band members leading up to this tour.  For some reason, I'm feeling a different (better) vibe for the start of this tour (say, as compared to 2011).   

Agreed.

But, I think sometimes we get a little carried away with the thinking Axl is just dying to get new stuff out and can't get any cooperation.  That's usually my main point of contention.

My opinion is that the label gives no fucks, and frankly, Axl isn't really pressing the issue.

Correct.  Truthfully, there's zero evidence out there that says he's itching to get new music out.  The other side will tell you "well, there's nothing that says he's not interested in releasing new music, so..."  That argument carries less and less weight with each passing day/week/minth/year.

I would love a new album with this band since his voice is much better than when CD was recorded. Also, this band has much more chemistry than the band that did CD. I think new material wouldn't be all over the place like CD was. With that being said, only Axl can make that choice. If he wants to tour, I'll support him by going to the show in the NYC area.

Maybe one day all the songs will be released including the seven songs that the original band did before breaking up. Until then, I'm not holding my breath for a new album and will go to a show IF he comes to NYC or NJ.

I agree.  I think he's had more fun these past few tours than...well, than ever. 

Let's face it, in their prime, he almost seemed like he was being forced onstage at gunpoint.  Did not appear to be having a blast with it all.  And I do agree that the 2002 band, while musically interesting, really seemed like a mish mash island of misfit toys sort of collection.

But if you watch him now, he's seems to be digging it out there.  Having fun.

What seven songs are they? And who do you mean by the original band? They never broke up as such. Steven got fired, Izzy quit, Gilby's pay cheques just stopped, Paul replaced Gilby, Matt got fired and Slash and Duff left all at different times between 1990 and 1998.

Isn't Zakk Wyldes Pride & Glory containing some songs that could've been Gn'R?

Agree that it would be cool to hear every note Gn'R ever recorded. That said, I hope for a mix of CD II with brand new songs. Just think of the song-writing capacity there is in the band now, especially Tommy and Bumble, and of course: Axl  :)

definately!  Axl does seem to finally be really having fun on stage- it's pretty clear that he certainly doesn't need the $- he is performing because he wants to &  prolly the easiest line-up to work with for him- they are incredible musicians, reliable& laid back & seem fine with Axl being in charge, period. Axl does what Axl wants & if he didnt want to tour we'd prolly never see him again -which I was very worried about when he basically disappeared between 1994- 2000. It amazes me that he has performed hundreds of awesome shows since 2006 when i was certain i would never see him perform again :peace:

Gilby, rumor has it that there were  seven songs worked on by Axl, Slash, Duff, and Matt before Slash left the band.... As far as the original band not breaking up, I consider them broken up. GNR is a name now only. That's it. That's how I view them until something new is produced. I'm fine with that. Like I said, I'll support Axl if he comes to NJ/NYC. I'm most likely will go to the Aerosmith/Slash concert to support Slash as well. 

I'm not exactly sure if Zakk Wyldes' Pride & Glory has some songs that could have been GNR. I think it would have been amazing having Slash and Zakk in the same band. Too bad that didn't work out.

As much as we would all love to believe there are seven unheard late Slash era tracks out there, surely in this day and age they would have leaked long before now. And wouldn't Dizzy and Paul have been played on those tracks too? You got any track names or anything?

Gilby- this is what i was referring to http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?/topic/102351-the-unreleased-1995-1997-album/

This day and age doesn't prove anything if the material is safely hidden somewhere and has been for years and years. I'm not saying the songs exist but if so they haven't leaked because nobody's touched them. Any new stuff nowadays will leak indeed as we all downloading motherfuckers know.