Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Slash appeared on CBS This Morning today to announce the new music video for his song ?Beneath the Savage Sun.? The tune and video, which he created with his band Myles Kennedy and The Conspirators, was written and shot to help raise awareness for endangered elephants.

The guitarist has long distanced himself from any talk of returning to Guns N' Roses ? the band he joined in 1985 and left in 1996 after helping them become one of the biggest groups in the world.

Slash recently said he was sick of being asked about the possibility of a reunion of the classic lineup, but today told CBS News that much of animosity between himself and the singer has dissipated.

He says: "I got to be careful what I say there, I mean, if everybody wanted to do it and do it for the right reasons, I think the fans would love it. I think it might be fun at some point to try and do that. Never say never."

He adds: "There's no animosity. Over time we all just got sick and tired of the black cloud. The biggest thing that happens when you have a break up that is less than harmonious, you build up a bad energy because of the distance. The bad feelings get exaggerated."

Read More: Slash Says 'Never Say Never' to Guns N' Roses Reunion | http://loudwire.com/slash-never-say-never-guns-n-roses-reunion/?trackback=tsmclip

We're pretty certain Axl needs a new guitarist right??

So.. his new cd isn't doing as well as he'd hoped?

When he says there is no animosity, I don't think it should be misinterpretted that he's speaking for everyone.

I don't know if he was hoping for more...but it was well received and sold decently.

I'm going to see him play tonight at terminal 5... I'm excited.

Correct.

He was doing very good business in Europe. Enjoy tonight.

"World On Fire" was released in September of 2014 and it did pretty well.

"World On Fire", the third album to be made available under the Slash solo banner, sold around 29,000 copies in the United States in its first week of release to land at position No. 10 on The Billboard 200 chart. The CD arrived in stores on September 16 via Slash's own label Dik Hayd International distributed through Roadrunner Records (Europe, Middle East, Africa and Latin America).

"World On Fire" first-week chart positions:

Switzerland: #1
Australia: #2
Germany: #2
Ireland: #2
Japan: #3
Finland: #3
France: #4
Austria: #5
UK: #7
USA: #10

Even if sales are not astronomical, he must be making good money given that he's using his own label.  I'd be interested in knowing what multiple of sales you would need to have with a big label to net out the same money using your own label.  For example, would an artist selling 100,000 units independently net out the same money selling 1,000,000 with a big label?

My point was more that he has to draw attention to himself by creating a click-baiting pull quote for the interview that's far more interesting than anything he's doing as a solo performer.

I'm expecting people to come back with 'he was just answering the question and it's how he feels right now'.  If you really believe that you'll believe anything.

Well, I'll say it : never.

There is no evidence Axl has matured or mellowed at all on this particular subject.

This comment from Slash is only news if he was the problem.  But he's not the holdout here.

At this point a reunion is the only hope  : ok:

Everyone can change their mind. The thing is we don't know 100% what went on between Axl and Slash, so it's hard to say what Axl might do.

He's been rock steady on his position on the subject though, so I really don't see him doing a 180 in the foreseeable future.

But, as Slash said, never say never. There was a time I never could envision Duff or Izzy performing with Axl again, it was a huge surprise to me when it happened, especially Duff.

Only hope? For what?



/jarmo

Yeah, what an attention seeking whore for the limelight. Why does he feel the need to write, record, tour albums and promote them in interviews?
And why answer a question someone asks you that?s interesting to fans of a band he helped create?
He should stop creating music, and granting interviews, and just tour the hits incessantly and maybe send out a few miscellaneous tweets from his couch in between looney toons re-runs.

If you watch the actual interview, I think you can see that Slash is uncomfortable with the barrage of GNR questions.  He is there to talk about the new single he released and to get attention for the charity he wants people to donate to.  I didn't get the feeling that he was trying to create headlines, but he was on national TV and he was asked about a reunion.  I think as long as everyone is still alive then 'never say never' is an acceptable answer. 

Didn't Axl give the same answer a while back about the subject if it were for the right reasons but not for money? Or was that in one of the other guys interviews?

Relevance?

Little point spending too much time on it, because Axl has been quite clear on this.  Clear to the point of absurdity, in some cases.

Honestly, Slash would probably have been netter served just saying he was done with all that.  Its vague, consequence free statements like this that get the reunion zealots all fired up.  "Never say never" is basically their credo.  No need to feed into it.

Axl's answers are about cancer, funerals, and unscrupulous managers.  And warnings that trying to "ambush him" is a bad idea.

Not the words of a guy terribly interested in the subject.

Not Axl I think. He's always been 100% dismissive on the subject of reunion.

The only time he talked about maybe doing something with the old band (not necessarily playing together) was in the TMS interview about the possibility of being inducted into the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame.

It was the Fortus interview I was thinking of http://ultimateclassicrock.com/axl-rose-guns-n-roses-reunite/ (http://ultimateclassicrock.com/axl-rose-guns-n-roses-reunite/)

The problem is that Axl is always all wrapped up in "not giving in" and builds up so many things as this struggle between the forces of good and evil.

So once everything is so intertwined like that, you're kind of fucked.  You can't just patch it up with a guy because you spent all this time saying how doing so would be a sign of retreat and weakness.  So just burying the hatchet because grudges are stupid is not an option, its all this great struggle for righteousness.

The real tragedy there being that 99% of the music listening public would not give 2 shits about any of that and would just be glad they patched it up.  You would have your diehard Axl loyalists that adopt all his causes as their own.  They'd be pissed and maybe a bit betrayed.  But shit, even among that crowd, you'd have people onboard because they adopt whatever mindset he has at any given moment.

How's a reunion the only hope for relevance? It's basically the wet dream for those who like to look back.....

Yeah. If the aim of the interview was to raise awareness for some animal campaign, it's kinda not doing that at the moment...




/jarmo

Yeah, I guess that's Richard interpretation of Axl's mindset when it comes to this.

If it were ever to happen, it surely wouldn't be just for the money.

Yeah, I just posted a thread in the VR section (the proper section) with the REAL interview.  The one posted here is just a piece of the story, and the only people being "baited" are the ones who want to endlessly criticize Slash for talking about GNR, and the ones who want to argue endlessly about a reunion.  And they are pretty easy to bait.   :P

Because from now until they all shuffle off this mortal coil, a reunion is going to be #'s 1-4 on a 5 item list about what people want to see from Guns N' Roses.

Just do not get that whole mindset.  Never have.

They are mad at Slash because Axl is mad at Slash.  Oooh, oooh, look how loyal we are being, Uncle Axl.

Nevermind that the guy is the lead guitarist on most of our favorite rock tracks of alltime. 

Crazy talk.

Just because people want something, doesn't make it relevant.
Motley Crue is out touring with their most popular line up, doesn't mean they're relevant in 2015 does it?

That's the part I disagreed about and that was why I asked what it was the only hope for.

So the question remains,  what is it the only hope for?



Regarding your hypothesis why people would be "mad" at Slash. You'd be surprised how many people can read and aren't lazy. They read. Maybe they did some free thinking and came to their own conclusions! :o  I don't know, I didn't ask. But that's my guess based on reading posts and listening to what they have to say.





/jarmo

I dont know what it is...maybe im getting old...but for the last few (10) years ive said no no no to any kind of reunion. Let by gones be by gones. Loved both era's as such. Old n new. I love all the old band and the new and never combined the two. Two different era's. But for the past few weeks ive kinda like been what the hell...lifes far too short, id love to see axl n slash on the same stage again. Even if its a song or 2. Sorry Jarmo! I think both fans old n new (except 2) would appreciate it.

I think, for many people this stems back from the early days of VR especially. Slash talked a lot of shit about Axl, and I think that divided the fanbase + a group of people that just remained neutral. Similar thing when Axl struck back some years later.

It's possible not to care about Slash - the person, and still enjoy his contributions in GNR.


Personally I consider myself quite neutral, leaning against believing Axl when it comes to the recollection of what happened way back when.

Slash admitted he was nasty and bitter towards Axl during that time.

Like I've said int he past... I don't know either party personally... don't care about their silly feud anymore. Love them both as entertainers, and I'm excited to see Slash tonight and hopefully Axl the next time there is a GNR tour.

Yeah, I'd probably classify myself the same.

I want to see them both succeed.  To both be doing as well as they can and both be happy.

I wish it was together, but I made my peace with that not happening.  But I'm not going to root for either one to fail.

Oh, the headlines....

Slash Says He?s Down For A Guns N? Roses Reunion? Your Move, Axl

http://www.vh1.com/news/15115/slash-would-do-a-guns-n-roses-reunion/

Yeah and this is what's going to get certain people all hot n bothered...

Everybody take a deep breath  :)

Hahahaha

Yeah, this is what you get.

But this is what I was saying to Jarmo a few posts back.  No matter what Axl, Slash, or even Duff ever do, the most interesting thing will always be a possible reunion.

The attention spans of some people never ceases to amaze me.

VH1 could've written that same headline in 2012 for the RNRHOF ceremony!  :hihi:
Or every other year since Slash quit...


/jarmo

Could they though?

Hasn't he taken to saying the past few years that he was done with all that and had moved on?

This would represent a softening of that stance. And the reunion zealots don't need much to go on.

"Never say never" is basically their credo and mission statement.  "Never say never" was why the HOF was going to happen, in their eyes.

With all due respect Jarmo, The Crue hasnt been relevant since the 80's. It's kind of comparing apples to oranges.

In terms of relevance, the reason GNR is still relevant to this day is because of the work of the core four members of GNR.

Agreed on both.

Their body of work from 1987-1993 is what put them, and keeps them, in the public consciousness.

Sure, those of us around here hope like hell the current line-up (or close to it) puts out a new album this year or next.  But we aren't the general public.

What else can you say when you're sure the other person isn't doing it? After those comments Axl made, you think Slash would say "I'm ready to do it!"? No way.
Does it mean he wouldn't have been into it if Axl had changed his mind the next day? It's all about looking cool.

Steven Adler also said he was done with Axl! Does anybody here believe he wouldn't do it in a heartbeat if he was asked? ;)



They'd be less relevant if Axl didn't keep going.



/jarmo

"Going to get"?  Three pages and counting on this thread, amigo!  I'd say we're already there!



That's funny, this thread about a partial interview with Slash is the most relevant thing in the GNR section right now.  Go figure.

I don't see how.  Its not like anything Axl has done in the past 20 years has added to it in any real way.

'Welcome To The Jungle' and 'Sweet Child O' Mine' would still be radio staples if Axl never sang another note post 'TSI?'

Hell, if the pack of them were abducted by aliens in 1995, opinion on GNR would be the same as they are today because their prime is all anyone (but us) ever talks about.

They'd be less relevant if Axl didn't keep going.



/jarmo


[/quote]

I don't agree with you on that. I think even if Axl wouldve put on a disapearing act from 96 till today they'd still be relevant.

Let's even take Axl out of the equation. The reason that Slash get's to go on morning show's to promote "charities" is because of his work in GNR.

Let's not stop there, The reason Duff get's publishing deals is because of his work in GNR.

The core guys will always be relevant.

Cant say that about any of the current members ( and I'm a fan of the current line up).

Agreed all around.

There are no Slash and Duff interviews that don't eventually get around to GNR.  This will never change.  Its the most relevant thing they have ever or will ever do, those prime years when they were the biggest rock band in the world.

In regards to the GNR reunion part of the interview, I think its important for people to watch the actual video.  The questions came out of right field.  I was thrown off by the (awful) transition of the interview and then they rapid fired GNR questions at him.  I know that Slash is accustomed to answering GNR questions, but this was on national TV and the questions seemed to catch him off guard.  

You do wonder if even right after he turned to whoever and said something along the lines of "man, that's going to bite me right in the ass."

No shit.  It went from a charity he was passionate about, directly to GNR reunion bullshit.  It was obvious that the interviewers had that intention all along, they were just letting Slash talk a bit about the elephants before going WHAM!  Now let's talk reunion!  Really, it was pretty disgusting to think about jumping from the charity subject to the GNR reunion.

If the band had ended in the 1990s, you'd have these topics to discuss: Live Era, Greatest Hits, RNRHOF and whether or not the band will reform one day.




And none of the headlines reflect the charity. No surprise.




/jarmo

Is that Slash's fault though?

Yeah, but how do you fight that?

They pretty much do that with his solo stuff too, right?  They are getting that GNR/Axl question out there, eventually.

Plenty of fans are indifferent to Slash?s solo output, the change in Axl?s voice, sound/direction of Chinese Democracy and so on.
If they had disbanded and disappeared from the spotlight back in ?93, people would remember them going out at the top of their game, and that could make the the demand for a reunion even greater.

Not a bad point.

Look at Nirvana.  By him blowing his brains out whole they were still pretty much at the height of their fame, you have no real bad memories.  No so-so albums, or petering along until it just all petered out.

That's what I say when people ask me about GNR breaking up.  I say that I have no real bad memories of the band, because that 7 year stretch was pretty much all awesome.

And exactly how is the current lineup forward thinking?  Every song the current lineup plays is based off the back catalog (even the CD ones ? think Fink, Bucket and Brain).  Appetite for Democracy = "a wet dream for those who like to look back."  I mean, if shows are largely going to be based on songs from 20+ years ago, it?s natural to want to have the people that actually created them to be on stage. [insert ?another setlist complaint? response here]

Haha I agree.  What's incredible though is that after I watched the video I thought for sure no headlines would come of it.  It seemed like he was being badgered with annoying questions on live national TV and he answered them as best and positively as he could.  And now there are ridiculous headlines about it!

In other news not to brag, but I met Slash today right after this interview haha.  He came by my workplace to do some press and I got a picture with him and he signed my AFD record.  Looking forward to the show tonight!

And where did I say it was?

In the past, he's told journalists "no GN'R questions". I guess this was one of those interviews where it was fine to ask about GN'R... And look what happened.
Nobody is surprised.




You answer my question with a question? A question I never said anything about. Funny.
Only certain fans would make a statement such as "reunion is the only way to be relevant".

Appetite For Democracy featured more songs not on any of the old albums than what a band like AC/DC plays on their tours supporting their latest albums. Go figure.

By the way, there'd be no setlists for you to whine about if Axl didn't keep GN'R going. So the fact that you bring up their first Vegas residency, means it must be relevant!  :D


Like I said, if Axl hadn't kept going, there's be way less GN'R press over the years. Whether or not you think that's relevant is irrelevant. That kept GN'R in the spotlight more than a dormant band would have done.



/jarmo

In his defense, the show he was on was Live television, so he may have made the request beforehand and then blindsided with the question.

But the fact that different media outlets are running with it tells you the relevance of the old band.

I have never been much into the idea of a reunion but I am under no illusions that 99.9% of the people who would ever potentially be interested in GN'R could do so, only on the understanding that it is '' Axl & Slash''. The new band is either routinely mocked or has failed to register.

I'm aware that it was on a big network and that might explain the less controlled situation from his part. But, nobody can be surprised at how it turned out.

Also, where did I say what you claimed I said? I'm still waiting for your answer to that.
I have a bit of a problem with people who tell me I said something that I didn't. I stand for what I say, I won't stand for what you think I said, or accuse me of saying.


Relevance? Hard to tell if it's relevance or just wanting something you don't have. The music itself is timeless. So that's not exactly the issue. It's always been relevant.
It's not about the music, it's about the reunion talk. Chances are, nothing will change regarding the way you look at (or hear) the music.





/jarmo

I say they do it and I'll be there  : ok:

Well I'll said it before and I'll say it again. I would love to see the classic lineup reunite!!! Nothing will ever beat the originals. I'm neutral in this whole debate about Axl v Slash. Both were and still are my childhood idols.

For anyone going to the show tonight please report back. I came close to buying a ticket. Unfortunately Terminal 5 is in the middle of no where and I would be concerned about getting back to NJ. Closest subway is too far to walk and it would be a nightmare trying to hail a cab. Also, I didn't want to be in pain with my feet. 

Two reasons I'm not pulling for a Reunion:
1-I like the current GNR..
2-the Bandwagon Effect....
  -I remember how difficult it was when KISS Reunited in the 1990's.....
I don't often feel entitled, but when I support a band, as I have with GNR, through thick N' thin I should get preferential treatment over a fly bye nighter...

I feel as though there has been a reconciliation of some kind. Perhaps brought on by Duffs return last year. Normally there is no smoke without fire. There were reports that Axl talked about a reunion at the Vegas residency last year (this came from AEG chief exec I believe) that coupled with Slash's new positive stance.

Also I was so surprised to see that online betting game being advertised using the old bands image (Slash very much included). This has got to be evidence that the situation is changeling at least from a business sense.

Now it could be Axl is coming to a compromise with the label ie you rub my back and release my album properly I'll allow you to cash in on the old image. Everyone is a winner with this. If Slash is making more money that is probably a good reason to start playing "nice".

This is all speculation on my part & for the record I'd rather have a new album than a reunion.
I am one of those lucky fans who really enjoys supporting all the classic line up in their respective projects.
At the moment we've got GN'R, Slash & Myles, loaded, Adler, Walking Papers & only this week an EP with Izzy & Duff. It's actually a pretty good way to see things.

I want that to happen so I can see tools like jarmo eat cake. Like he used to love VR - then when things got like they are he said that he was young and understands slash sucks now. Can't wait to read his posts about slash once Axl loves him again. be interesting  ;D

We'll all be there Oldfan. And to all those opposed... hmm... well ...

Awww.

Yeah, VR was exciting at first. It wore off quite fast. Couldn't stand the singer. Never been a fan. Also not a fan of alternative history telling.

Unlike people like you, I stand for what I say. I don't have any problems with it. Slash's solo albums do nothing for me. I remember how excited I was when he released his first Snakepit album. I listened to it quite a lot. Then once I stopped and went back to it, I was like "Huh?". Same with VR.

I've been accused of all kinds of shit by morons who like to think they know. I never disrespected the old band or their music. That's just fucking stupid to assume that I'd suddenly stop liking the music that made me a fan. But some people do that. They think they know. "Oooh, you don't like his book or his solo albums so it must mean you hate AFD!". Right. Logic For Dummies.

Haha.

If it ever happens all the turncoats will be back claiming they always supported Axl. But most of us know the truth.

Do you know the difference between you and a Leatherman? A Leatherman is a useful tool. :D



/jarmo

If Axl, Slash, Duff, and Izzy (or Fortus if Izzy wants to wander the earth like Kane from Kung Fu) reunite (with Frank or Matt or whomever on drums)... I'd be happy (I don't think Steven could do it)

If Axl releases a CD follow up album and takes a few years off... I'd be happy

If Axl back fills Ron, tours for another year or two... then addresses a follow up... I'd be happy

At the end of the day I am a fan of the original members of the band. I have gotten enjoyment out of most of their side/solo projects and certainly have enjoyed the post 2000 lineups. However outside of a few staples I haven't really attached myself to any of the post 2000 'employees' because Axl has proven over the last 15 or so years that he can replace Bucket, Tobias, Fink, Brain, and even in small stints Tommy without really skipping a beat. I feel (IMO) that my ability to ride the waves of departures and additions to the newer lineups show me that I am an Axl fan... So if he continues down a hired guns path, so be it... If they reunite for a show, a tour, or an album... great.

I'm not going to really spend a lot of energy hoping it goes one way or the other.

This makes me wonder. All the ones "needing" a reunion.

We're talking hypothetical scenarios here now.

So imagine it happened. A show, or a tour. And then that was it.
What would these people "need" next? Does anybody think they'd just be happy and feel their lives were complete?

If they had played together at the RNRHOF. Would it have stopped there?

I think, as usual, that it's not gonna be enough..... One "demand" is always followed by another.
Like when there's a campaign to get GN'R to play somewhere, and then a show or shows are announced, so the next camping starts for them to play certain material or to have a certain opening act.... Funny how that works.  :)



/jarmo

What did I claim you said? I dont think i claimed you said anything? The was it Slash's fault question was me playing devils advicate, not me claiming you were implying that.

The music is why that particular lineup will always be relevant and why people will always want what they cannot have (reunion).

Ditto.

And I think that list you provide is in inverse order of probability...with the last being the most likely, and the first being least likely.

Honestly, this will probably be my only comment on this thread..because, quite frankly, it's not an interesting conversation.  Not to me. It's the same conversation, the same debate points, the same WORDS that have been said for about 20 years, now.

The only difference...and IMHO it's a very minor one...is that Slash has said "never say never".  Nothing else in any of what he's said, to me, paints a different picture than the one that had been painted yesterday.  He's said similar things about being "over" his animosity toward Axl.  He's made some pretty widely reported attempts (some he denies, some he doesn't) to reconnect with Axl.  NOTHING CHANGED except that one line.

Which, honestly, I think  you could have surmised was his position by some of the other things he's said and done over the past few years.

So...I'll leave this one to the rest of you, and exit, stage left.  Enjoy!

Let me tackle this one...As someone in a band..I want the people who follow us to want more. I dont want them to be content. They allow us to do something we love for a living. So I dont view it as them demanding things from us. I view it as them being interested. Once they lose interest its over.

The fact that GNR has been able to have and enjoy this level of support and demand for as long as they have is a testament to the body of work that they produced.

I'll have to admit that all this talk is the bug or the cancer if you may of this fucking band.
All of us grew up with the original but what would really a reunion do ? One show ? one tour ? then what ?
I'd be more excited if Axl releases the follow-up to Chinese Democracy than anything.Since the chance to perform at the hall of fame went by,and that would serve as the tombstone to all of this,no-one wants to see a reunion.Even those who say they do,re-think it.

The only reason I posted it in the order I did is due to the topic. I would agree (even with the time heals all wounds sentiment) that a full scale reunion is very unlikely. My preference would be to work on replacing Ron (if that is required) then touring and/or getting the follow up to CD in everyone's hands.

IF (and that is a big if) the past animosity between Axl and Slash gets swept under the rug, then maybe some day we will see Slash walk out on stage and do a few songs like Izzy or Duff (before he started with full show fill ins), I don't really think it would ever be more than that.

Honest?  Observant?  Conscious?



I think this point would absolutely be relevant.  If it were at all accurate, which its not.

Where has all this press been?  "In the spotlight"?  Where are you living?  No one talks about the current band but we diehards. 

The biggest bit of press they have gotten in this time period was the Hall Of Fame.  Which was going to happen even if Axl moved to the South Pole 20 years ago.

There have been little hints and things that have made people believe there has been a cooling of the hatred.

Combined with GNR's current status kinda up in the air and Duff's emergence in the GNR sphere... it just makes for good water cooler talk.

I'd have to see it to believe it. Even if Axl woke up and realized oh man ... I actually love Slash... I don't think he would push his material or people to the side.



As for last night's show... Slash was great... was about 10 feet from him the whole show. Myles, IMO actually does an amazing job covering Double Talkin Jive and You Could Be Mine considering that Axl is such a special voice.

What a reunion would do would be to kill any incarnation of the band that is not the one everyone knows.

Why do you think Axl didn't go to the HOF?  Because the second he steps back on stage with the classic band, you can't go back.

Which unfortunately... is an indictment of the current band 's "relevance".

This bands history is just so dramatic isn't it?

Which is all this is.  

I don't get why people get so offended and fired up about it.  Is there some other new, exciting thing with the current line-up we are neglecting by shooting the shit in this one thread?

Its not like the current band has a new album out or is even on tour.  We don't even know who is in the current band, for god's sake.  Nothing is being shoved to the back burner by us taking an afternoon or two to kick this around.

The best way to stop rehashing is to give people something new to talk about.

I'm gonna reneg a bit on the "no more comments" thing to weigh in on this one thing, because it seemingly gets mentioned, a lot.

That's just not true.

I see an article almost ever other week about GnR.  That new unauthorized release. Axl's take on the May-Pac fight. The "new classic album" article that's out. An old friend can make a reunion. This is why Slash left GnR and I CAN get a reunion.

There is a constant flow of articles going on, covering both past and present. Old and new.  And when one outlet publishes something, others seem to repeat/spread it.  It's not just one voice in the lonely darkness.

"Spotlight" might be strong, maybe.

But so is the assertion that "only the die hards" are talking about GnR.  Because, if that were true, those articles would dry up....because media sites aren't going to continue to publish material that don't get web hits and drive traffic.

Exactly right.

I'm right with the people that say this is a pipe dream anyway.  100% agreed.  But I'm not with people that can't be honest about what it would mean if it did somehow happen.

The other 2 guys in KISS at the time of that MTV Unplugged said that the second those original guys came out on stage, they knew they were done.  This is the same thing.  You can't possibly give people Slash and Duff and then say...hey that was fun, but now we are going to back to a bunch of guys most of you still can't pick out of a line-up.

Doesn't work.

Just want to add.. Jarmo is 100 percent right ... Slash didn't say anything new... it's not his fault the headlines are cheap grabs

Slash has never before said I refuse to ever do a reunion he's always been open to the idea.

Everytime you think you're out...we pull you back in.

What is any of that adding to GNR legacy though?  That was where I was going.  These pieces you are talking about do get mentioned, but is there any sort of talk about the current band?  Not really.  They get noticed because Axl Rose was a huge star...25 years ago.

Ok, fair enough.  : ok:





I know about interest and that's cool.
It's just the "Please, we need ________" stuff that I don't relate to.





For a guy who claims he reads all interviews, it's kinda amusing you now claiming there was no press.
Selective memory?

Every time Axl talks, it ends up in the press. And it's the same every time he does an interview or shows get announced.


No matter how much you try to discredit Axl, the fact is people are intrigued by him because there's nobody else like him. And that's something you don't seem to like.
Your excuse seems to be that it's all because of something that happened decades ago. You don't see that kind of attention devoted to Debbie Gibson now do you?


Edited to add: Your idea that nobody talks about the current band. If that was the case, why do you think it was? Because Axl's the "bad guy" and he's doing something he's not supposed to. The whole "it's not GN'R" agenda. Obviously you'll just say this is me being this or that and looking for excuses. You're just too stubborn to admit that these sentiments exist among certain people.

Yes, a reunion would generate press. It's what the press has been living off for decades. "Will they or won't they?" has been the question asked for quite some time.



/jarmo

First all: That's a different argument, and one I'll let you have with jarmo, or whoever.

Second: DJ's interview weighing in on the current situation (and then having that carried by various outlets), All the interviews with Ron (and you know that, while he wants to talk about his solo efforts, the majority of the outlets doing the interviews want to talk about his status with GnR).  Again, those things crop up with pretty remarkable regularity.  I'd say those are talking about the current incarnation of the band.

I'll leave you guys to debate whether that adds to the legacy or whatever....but, like I said in the first post, it's a mixed bag of old and new.

To go back to the original point: You essentially said there was nobody talking about the band except us diehards.  That's just not true.

Jarmo's point, as I took it,  was that if the current incarnation didn't exist, you'd get a lot less of those articles.....a lot less of the media talk..which keeps the band in whatever realm of the public conciousness it resides in.  

Yours is that the conversations are spurred on by Axl, and what he did 25 years ago, not the current band.

Whether either of those are valid or not, there's no denying there IS a lot of talk about the band. Right?

Exactly!

You don't have a GN'R tour or shows, you don't have any articles discussing GN'R.

Look back at the Chinese Democracy years. It was about the next Guns N' Roses album and the myths relating to it.





/jarmo

Yeah, this is absolutely where we disagree. 

Because I don't think the current band has a spot in the public consciousness, to be honest.

The DJ comments, and to a lesser extent the Ron comments, that's the stuff only we are noticing.  Because only we care what they are doing, present day.

The stuff Axl says gets picked up, yes.  But not because of anything he's done lately.  Its no different for any celeb that hits the biggest of the big time.  They will always be something of a curiousity because they were such big stars.  Yet a long time ago.  Its never really a commentary on what they are doing right now, or even lately.

So is Axl tweeting about a giraffe keeping GNR in the public consciousness?  I think that's a stretch.

Then you guys should have at that debate.  It just needs to be pointed out that there IS a lot of GnR talk, old and new, that's circulated via the press.  It's not a great wasteland.

I'd also offer that if the DJ/Ron articles/interviews weren't driving web traffic, they wouldn't get done and circulated by all the various music news outlets. But, honestly, I've no horse in the above race, so I'll leave you two to hash all that out.

Let me do you one better...and this speaks to the relevance of the original band:

There are few bands in the history of Rock where you can name most of the core members.

Most people couldnt name the bassist in a majority of bands. Duff gets book deals and manages to still have a successful music career.

The same with Slash. He gets to do what he does based on his work with GNR.

I think that even if Axl wouldve dropped the name that band would still be relevant.

I mean look at Zeppelin.

I completely agree with all of this.

However, I have seen it argued here that people didn't know the names of the members, even back in the day. 

Now, personally, I think that is totally inaccurate.  But, I also recognize that it is motivated by a defense mechanism when people get their backs up about the fact no one knows the guys from the post-2000 line-ups. 

In other words, if you can't credibly argue with a straight face the current line-up are household names, your only option is to try and sell the things were always that way.

Which...well, I just don't find very real world.

Well the way to answer that would be...why would the media care that the FORMER basist of GNR has written a book?

Im sure there arent too many bands where the press would care if the former bassist wrote a book. (Sorry to any bassists out there...including my own).

Hahahaha

A reunion is completely unsustainable. It would collapse within two weeks. Can you imagine Slash agreeing to work with Team Brazil, or conversely Axl relinquishing Team Brazil in order to accommodate Slash? Do you in fact feel that Slash would swallow becoming a hired hand? Axl and Slash's work ethics are also completely different. Can you imagine them trying to record together? Slash likes to put out one album every year. Axl likes to put out one album ever twenty years.

I could maybe envision one or two shows but anything like a permanent reunion would collapse.

I am quite sure a good amount of people would care about a bassist who was an original member of The Replacements and played with Guns N Roses for 15 years.... :hihi:

Apples and Oranges. The Replacements (and I'm a fan of them) were never as big as GNR was in there heyday.

Also...( and I'm a fan of Mr.Stinson's), Tommy will always be remembered (and rightfully so) primarily for his work in the Replacements. He as well as the other current members ( are there any?) had the impossible task of trying to compete with the legacy created by the originals.

I wonder if it gets past the negotiation stage.

Axl considers Team Brazil family, but the other guys don't.  They have their own management.  And how do you think them all working together would go?

In fairness sky dog... you are about one of 6 people that care about The Replacements on these boards lol

In fairness Jaeball, I realize that. But, the entire universe doesn't revolve around AFD. Tommy and The Mats get tons of press....whether you care or not is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.  >:(

Not my thing... but I saw them last year ... I was invited and it was free.. I had a fun night out.

*****IFFFFFFFF anything was ever worked out... Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy would have to lock themselves in a room away from all the irrelevant people to making music or playing the instruments.

Back to the topic, I would love to see the big four get back in the ring....don't think it will happen but it would be neat to see.

I think this has less to do with his persona. Meaning, he has a story to tell. A great story.
Add to that the fact that the story involves one of the last great rock bands that became popular in the 1900s.

A bunch of people get interviewed and have published books regarding their time in and around GN'R. There's definitely an interest in the topic.

I'm not saying anything about Duff's importance or his musicianship. I'm just saying there'd be less interest if GN'R had been more like..... Winger! Less drama to talk about.  :hihi:
Not that I know if there was any drama in Winger. Maybe that story is highly interesting....



/jarmo

Even if there has been a "cooling of the hatred" or whatever is being assumed that is still a LONG way off from a reunion actually taking place.  The band members still have to WANT to do it.  I don't know Axl, but judging from some quotes and interviews over the years it doesn't seem like  it's something he has any interest in doing.  Look at Oasis, yes the Gallagher brothers are known for their feuding, but Liam and Noel actually hang out occasionally and still Noel refuses to do put the band back together.  How often do Slash and Axl hang out?  The whole blink-182 fiasco the last few months got a little ugly, but Travis Barker in all his interviews talks  about how there is no hatred or animosity for Tom Delonge,  but they still can't work things out enough to make a new record and tour because Tom likes doing other projects.  Nobody seems to be taking into account that sometimes there are just things the ARTIST doesn't want to do, even if they are on not so terrible terms with eachother.

I agree. I think all parties are very content with their current set ups.

So true.

These guys haven't so much as spoken in 20 years.  So you gotta walk before you can run.

If Slash and Axl worked out their personal differences, Slash could give Axl a tape and see if he was still inspired by what he heard.
I get the impression he hasn?t been inspired by his surrounding musicians since the Illusions.
Could be wrong, but how impressed with someones parts can you be if you are cutting and pasting it beyond recognition?
That?s not how the old band worked. They didn?t need to.
That magic between them could very well be, and most likely is dead and buried, but there?s only one way to find out.
I?m not personally sure I want to know.

Best you could hope for is a reunion tour or a small run of high profile shows.

If you're using a part for a song, it's evident it's impressive enough.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but several old GN'R songs have this same "theme". Songs have different parts that almost sound like different songs.




/jarmo

I think he was inspired with his initial new band line-up (Bucket, Robin, Huge, Stinson, Reed, Brain).

But I think the gradual dissolution of that bunch has extinguished a good bit of his fire.  Its why when he seriously takes a look at what they are doing in regard to releasing another album, its poring over songs from that time period, over a decade ago now.  But you don't see the same fire to do anything new.  Didn't see it with Ron, don't see it with DJ. 

Oh, no doubt.  That's absolutle best case.

They aren't making some other album.

Well, they didn?t exactly go into the studio and bang Chinese Democracy out is my point.
Axl labored over it for much longer than anyone ever could have possibly anticipated.
The magic that was there at one point between the classic lineup was clearly absent from the later incarnations.

Maybe a reunion could spark it, but again, probably wishful thinking.

I can see that, and could also understand how watching multiple lineups disintegrate could take the wind out of Axl?s sails, whether the damage be self inflicted or not.

That?s why I think it would be great for him to pursue a true solo career, but that?s another discussion.

It does not sound the least bit organic.

It sounds like a bunch of stuff recorded over time y several people and spliced together mad scientist style...basically, because that's what it is.

Any follow up will be the same thing, I reckon.

Ugh.

Keep telling yourself that.
The fact that the band had to be rebuilt from pretty much scratch isn't an issue. Or all the other issues they had. Disregard all that and go with your fantasy that Axl wasn't inspired by the music.

Every song that was on the album has been performed live. Pretty good for a singer singing all those songs that didn't inspire him.


By the way, rewind to 1994. He wasn't exactly inspired by the Slash material back then.



/jarmo

Leave Debbie and Kip Winger out of this!  :hihi:

The interest in the current lineup is because of the name and connection to Axl.  The media isn't exactly jumping over each other for that Beatrazr exclusive.  And how many DJ, Richard, Ron or Tommy interviews have you seen where there was no GnR question asked.  I can't recall one.  The relevance of those guys, by and large, is because of their association with Axl and Guns.  

You need look no further and Ron.  Isn't it safe to assume that he'll slide right back into obscurity now that he's no longer in the band?  

But that's not a reason to do nothing...because some people are going to want you to do more.  Since when do the concerns of "fans" come into the equation?  The man's built his career on doing things when he's ready.  IMO, if it feels right for him to do a reunion, he'll do it.  If it doesn't, he won't.  I think it could be as simple as that.  I just don't think a reason for not doing it is because some whiny, unhappy internet trolls will want more. 

Sorry! ;)





Of course there's interest in the band because of Axl. That's what I said. People who hate him still talk and write about him.

But some seem to say the interest is based only on what happened decades ago. I don't agree. If that was the only matter, he would've been on one of those "Where Are they Now?" segments on some TV show.
Lots of artists have been famous decades ago and are pretty anonymous nowadays. It happens. Or, if they unfortunately didn't make it, they've become so called legends. People still talk about Kurt Cobain. But it's not about what he'll do next, it's what he did and what he might have done if he was here today. With Axl, people talk about the past, present and future.


People care, people talk. It's not because he sang Sweet Child. Yes, that's where some of the recognition comes from, people know him as the voice of that song. But it's not only that. It's because he's Axl Rose. And there's only one.

In short for people who don't wanna read all those sentences: There's interest in Axl Rose today because he's fucking Axl Rose. Not only because he sang a song people liked when they were teenagers.

 : ok:




I didn't say it was a reason for anything. I was just thinking out loud. How some people always "need" something.
Everybody knows certain people will never be happy. No matter how much they like to type out words claiming the opposite. :)




/jarmo

Well, there are many kinds of reconstruction.  There is having to rebuild after an act of god type storm.  And there is having to rebuild the house you torched for the insurance money.

And yes, all those songs were played live.  They are also from years ago now.

You can very easily make an argument that his fire has dimmed a bit though.  Any next album is culling tracks from that same period, YEARS ago.  Isn't like its going to include anything written in the past 10 years, by guys actually on the stage with him.

Yeah, that whole bit of schtick is not even logical.

He's supposedly paralyzed by his not being able to please everyone.  When he has not only never shown one iota of caring what people think, the same people that lean on this excuse will gleefully tell you that its that not caring about what anyone thinks that makes him awesome.

Hard to take that sort of thing seriously.  Pick a narrative and try and stay with it, at least in the course of the same paragraph.

So I mentioned earlier in the thread that Slash stopped by my office after the interview on CBS to film an interview for a new show we are producing.  I was talking to the producer who worked with Slash on the project and she said that off camera he talked to her about the interview and he said "I can't believe I said that".  He apparently knew right away that it was going to create a shitstorm.  

I will let you know when our interview airs with him.  I know he was asked (once again) about the animosity between him and Axl.  I don't know how he responded.  

Never said it was one or the other.
Obviously rebuilding the band was a factor.
Why was he in the position of having to rebuild the band?
Not being inspired seems to have played a part.

The guy hasn?t exactly been oozing with new material.
No one knows why. All speculation on yours and my part.

A lot of bands have managed to form and release more than 1 album in 24 years, so I don?t see how lack of inspiration is any less viable a theory than having to rebuild a band from scratch.

He wasn?t inspired by Slash?s songs in ?94, until he was. That part seems to be conveniently ignored.

Well, this makes a lot of sense.

So if he was Bill Bailey, local factory worker in Indiana, he would have the same appeal to the masses?

Or does he perhaps, just perhaps, have that acclaim due to his time fronting one of the biggest rock bands of their time as W. Axl Rose?

And was that even really about some sort of supposed love for the material?

Or was it a "where does he get the balls" knee jerk reaction to his going off on his own?

Geez. Not "being inspired" to the left and right.

Why did he have to rebuild the band? Because people left.

Axl wasn't inspired by the songs so that inspired Slash to take his inspiration elsewhere, and then Axl got inspired and hired other inspiring musicians. Who got inspired and wrote music that inspired Axl to record the inspiring songs. Then it inspired the record company to release those inspirational songs that inspired most of us to go out and buy the album which inspired people to post on message boards.

So much inspiration!



Because Slash wasn't "inspired" enough to work on them.  :o

If you wanna talk about not being inspired, look at Slash. Listen to Contraband. “All in all, my playing is pretty reserved on that record, which is why there aren’t as many solos as there could have been. I felt too restricted to improvise the way I usually do.”






You still don't get it.

He's not only famous because of those old songs. No matter how much you want to claim that. Hence my mention of Debbie Gibson. Maybe you're still talking about her. I have no idea.
Scott Stapp had a bunch of hits I couldn't stand. Do you still talk about him?


Hell, I bet even in your city there are people who consider Axl more famous for something else. And are still bitter about it 12+ years later.




/jarmo

Yeah...he pretty much is, bro. 

Sorry if that's a kick in the pants for you (for whatever reason), but he's famous for being a rock singer.  Not for being just one of the most fascinating humans to ever walk among us.

He's famous and interesting because he sang a bunch of rock songs millions of people dug.

I'm not your, "bro".

So, are you still talking about Scott Stapp?
Millions of you liked his songs too.

And I don't mean you only talk about him when he's caught slurring somewhere.


He's interesting because he's an original. He's talented AND he doesn't do what you think he should. Also, he says what he thinks.
If he was a politically correct media whore like Jon Bon Jovi, there'd be way less interest.

Yeah, I don't like Jon.  :P


Somebody becomes famous for something they do. But, if that's all, they often get forgotten. You obviously have some kind of issue acknowledging this. Maybe your free thinking capabilities are so limited that you don't understand it even after being given examples.

Why does it seem like Slash  has to be seen everywhere? He played the guitar on Sweet Child, he should be set for life. Everybody will always remember him. He doesn't have to play with the Best Buy band or the Black Eyed Peas? Right? According to you, that's all it takes. Apparently, many disagree since we got Bret Michaels on TV decorating houses and Vanilla Ice is hanging out with the Amish.



/jarmo

Yeah, but the music that band produced provided the platform for Axl Rose.

Yes, I agree. All of the rest of the stuff is peripheral. If Appetite was not as good as it was, all of the rest of the stuff would be an irrelevance.

What was Contraband, 5 albums ago? 6?
He seems plenty inspired.

What he?s describing sounds more like he?s playing in a new band, with different dynamics than he was accustomed to.
I thought he was the star of Contraband myself, but thought he stepped back on the sophomore to showcase Scott more.
I thought it worked. Not flashy, but he gave the songs what they needed.

Back to inspiration, Axl wasn?t inspired by Slash?s demos(until he was) and yes, this was a point of contention in the band.
Not the reason, but contributed to the demise of that era of Guns. People left because nothing was getting done.
Duff and Slash have both stated Axl wasn?t showing up for rehearsals. He wasn?t productive.

People left. People continue to leave. People will keep leaving, because nothing gets done.

I?ve provided my theory as to why that may be.
Again, it?s just as viable a theory as yours, whether it jives with what you want to believe is true or not.

Well, sure, you say that now.

But I'd be more convinced if you made post after post, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, about how much Jon doesn't matter to you...all as a means to convey how much he doesn't matter to you.

If you wanted to be clear about it, I'm saying.

I do not see anything wrong with Bon Jovi really. I do not like their music which represents the most commercial side of hard rock, but they do what they do professionally, release albums and their fan base seems reasonably happy except for the errant Sambora. They are relatively innocuous really. Rock music for fans of pop.

Again, ignore the points so you don't need to "think".
I guess it's easy to get distracted when your Jon is made fun of. Even if it's all lighthearted and nothing serious.

Jon Bon Jovi, sold a shitload of records and rocked a million faces. Still people are more fascinated by Axl Rose.




/jarmo

If you think my post in question was about Jon, you might want to give it another read, champ.

It seems that even after one of them has died,there will be still talk of reunion  :P

You sure seem easily "offended". Wannabe real fan. :D




/jarmo

Can't rule it out.

I'm pretty surprised we still have so many that believe.

I think it's probably also worth noting that if all it takes is to record popular songs to be remembered and be popular.. Slash was dropped from Geffen and noone cared about the second Snakepit album (not arguing on it's quality, just stating facts) and it took VR for him to actually become a household name again...


..just saying.

All I know is that if the original lineup reunites, I want a band consisting of Matt Sorum, Gilby Clarke, Tommy Stinson, Bumblefoot, and Myles Kennedy to open for them. With Dizzy Reed on the keys!

As far as the interview did anybody else notice that Slash said well "the 4 of us" when talking about possibly reuniting.

I didn't the first time I watched, but realized the second time... id assume he means himself Axl Duff and Izzy....

The meat n potatoes

I always figured it would be Matt instead of Steven.

Which would also be my pick.

I personally hope there is not a reunion, which is highly unlikely in any event. I am perfectly happy with Slash doing his thing with his band and Axl doing his thing with GNR.2. It's the best of all worlds without a reunion. A reunion would likely just be a greatest hits package. It can never be the same as the original.

I assumed he was talking about himself, Duff, Izzy, and Steven.... thus leaving Axl on the outside as the one who isn't interested.

I also assumed a thread with "Slash" and "reunion" in the title wouldn't last 5 seconds on the main page, now here we are at 8 pages.   :hihi:

From Tour GNR 2006, Slash Love Axl, Love Gnr, Love Members, etc, etc., Conlcusion ?

 :smoking:

and what about Matt Sorum?
is Steven still able to play?

I don't really know who he could refer to..

In the 1990's most members of the old line-up were in a terrible state mentally and physically. The excessive amounts of drugs and alcohol basically buried the original alumni. However, they've all survived and matured and are now older and wiser. One can only hope, that the bitterness - and downright hatred - eventually wanes off making a reunion possible. Even if it were only for a few high profile shows. I know this is wishful thinking, but I personally would love to see Axl and Slash share the same stage again. Honestly, how many of you started listening to GN'R because of Buckethead, Finck or Bumblefoot? Not one!

It's as news worthy as anything else at the moment.

IMO it could only be Matt, I think Steven has dug his own grave in regards being in the loop (if there is one) as far as a reunion goes, his comments before RRHOF made sure of that. A totally classless act.

Assuming they just did some high profile shows... I don't see why both drummers couldn't take part. If the big 4 ever tried to make a record... then I think Matt makes more sense.

Nothing Steven says or does is classless... Unfortunately he just has a lot of demons.. but I don't think anything he does or says comes from a malicious place.

I was at the Rock N'Roll hall of fame performance and hearing/seeing Steven play with Slash & Duff was the highlight. He's got that 'groove' that sorum never had. As Bille Joe said his drumming is just perfect on appetite.

Slash I would guess agrees. I think his current drummer is the closest in feel to Steven out of all the replacements. He has a lightness of touch unlike Matt & Frank.

Agreed.  Steven has a bad case of mouth diarrhea, but he's passionate about Guns N Roses and his (rightful) place in it.  It's sad that he fucked himself up so much, because he cheated himself out of being the one rightful GNR drummer.  I've always sad he would have been deservedly regarded as one of the best rock n roll drummers of all time if he had stayed in the band 'til the end instead of fucking himself up on drugs.  But great things fall astray.   :(



I completely agree.  Slash, Duff, and Steven had incredibly solid chemistry at the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame.


Yeah, Slash has always made it a point to mention Steven in interviews where he really dug into the reunion subject.  Slash heavily favors the original five members; just consider what he wrote in his book where he gave Steven a huge amount of credit for the success of their first album, as well as saying that losing Steven was where GNR started to go off the rails.

Here's another Slash quote:

[Guns N Roses] already went wrong when original drummer Steven Adler was kicked out of the band.  Because Steven was gone, Izzy also [eventually] left. But we had a whole tour planned so we kept the whole thing going.  When it was time to record a new album, though, we missed those guys a lot.  Look, nothing was right about our little band, but we were very successful.  Without Steven and Izzy, though, it really turned into Axl's trip.

--- Slash, Aloha magazine, June 8, 2004

But Matt Sorum is a great friend of Slash and Duff too..
it would be hard to leave him out of a hypotetical reunion..

So is Gilby Clarke.  But I doubt he'd be asked back.  If you read anything Sorum has said lately, he concedes that Steven is indeed the sound of GNR.  At the time of the Hall of Fame, Sorum even admitted he felt awkward because he knew the public's love for GNR fell with the original five.

Hell, Steven said on the radio recently that he'd be fine with both himself and Sorum being there, each playing the songs they recorded.

Where does all this reunion talk come from. Are the appetite guys hungry for cash or something?

Steven isn't even remotely close to the "sound of Gnr"....sorry to be realistic. He was good, not great, on one album. People can be so delusional.

As for a reunion....nothing has changed in my eyes...don't know how the redhead feels.

Totally agree.

You just never know with Steven.  Total loose cannon.

Nope, we're nearing 9 pages of it from people on this board.  All because an out-of-context thread was posted derived from a question that Slash was uncomfortably asked.  This board is the only place "hungry" for it.


He is a loose cannon, but I'll go on record and say that Steven's (bad) habit of word vomit is in no way the first (or second, or third, or tenth) thing preventing a reunion of the five classic members.

Topics like this are just placeholders.

If the current band ever actually did anything, speculative topics like this would never take precedence over discussing it.

Oh, no question.

But assuming we are going to treat a reunion like a real thing that might happen, I can't see putting any trust in the guy. 

You put a bunch of money in his pocket, and take him out on the road on a  high profile tour?

Matter of time.

Duff was on 104.3 this morning with Jim Kerr in New York. As always Duff was awesome. They played a few GNR songs too.

Anyway he told a funny story about how when they were in South America.. He was waiting downstairs at the hotel for a call time, but he mixed up the time or something... So everybody was waiting for him.. and Axl was making fun of him for always being late to the shows  lol

I laughed. He said at first when Axl asked him to fill in he thought oh god no, but that he was very happy he did and that they talked thru a lot of stuff. Jim Kerr also asked him about Slash's comments last week... but Duff basically ignored the question ha. He said he cringed when he saw them ask Slash the question because they all get asked the same thing all the time.

I've said it 1000x's "If Slash and Duff reunite with Axl, it will be just that". It will be Duff and Slash with the current GNR line up sans Tommy and DJ or Bumblefoot. There might be a few Izzy appearances too. Heck, maybe if we are lucky Izzy would come back for a stretch. I do think that there is no way, no how, not even a remote chance that they tour with Steven Adler. No way you could leave such a high demand event in his hands. That is my take on it.

Man, I'm picking your quote, but don't get me wrong ... it's nothing with you ... I just would like to understand why the "cancer" comment is still so important for some people, after 6 years and why some people keep repeating it over and over again!

I mean, let's see what really happened ...

In 2009, after many years of Axl?s silence, and after only one side of the story being told to us by some GN'R's former members, Axl finally gave an interview, conducted by Del James.

In that same interview, Axl accepted to talk about the possibility of a GN'R reunion.

Axl told that there was no possibility for a reunion with his former bandmate Slash and said something that, even today, makes some people go mad:



The all interview was summarized to a single highlight promoted by the press: "Axl Rose calls Slash a cancer", as we can see here:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/axl-rose-calls-slash-a-cancer-in-new-chinese-democracy-interview-20090227

http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/guns-n-roses-axl-rose-calls-slash-a-cancer-198427

Some sites even change words to look even more dramatic: "Axl Rose says Slash is a Cancer", as you can see here:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/02/27/uk-guns-idUKTRE51Q2WA20090227

http://www.velvetrevolverforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=30991.5;wap2

It's funny to see that the press only wanted to promote a (supposedly) negative but sensationalist side of the all interview ... and, once again, the public eat it.

Like now, Slash gave an interview and the press only pick the ?never say never? quote  to fool everybody, once more.

The public eat this kind of shit so well that, until today, some people keeps repeating that "Axl called Slash a cancer", in defense of Slash, everytime someone say something ?bad? about Slash.

It's funny (but somehow sad) to see how some people can be easily manipulated by the press.

Let?s be a little bit strict and accurate now ? the truth is, Axl actually never called Slash a cancer nor said that Slash is a cancer. That?s a fact, as anyone can see.

Axl never said ?Slash is a cancer? nor ?Slash, your?re a cancer? ? that is calling someone a cancer.

Axl said "In a nutshell, personally I consider him a cancer..." ... It was an analogy ... obviously Axl was referring to Slash's behavior and to the way he, personally, saw his behavior ... that's why he referred "In a nutshell" ... he just didn't want to develop his motives behind the analogy.
I'm not saying that it is good or bad, but, maybe it's time for people to stop saying that Axl called Slash a cancer, because it isn't strict and accurate.

This may look like we are playing with words but, to me, there's a huge difference between "consider" and "calling".

 "To consider" has an implicit and weighted doubt

 "To call" involves an undoubted statement

I was reading somewhere a comment made by Marc Canter, a close friend of both Axl and Slash, regarding this question and he said:


Some people also say that Axl was being mean when he said that, because he knew Slash?s mother were dying from cancer. This is just insane. I think Slash?s mother was already dead when this happened ? so was Axl?s mother. The ?cancer? in that context it?s just a common term ? whoever thinks Axl could be referring to Slash?s mother?s past disease, can?t be in his perfect mind.

Another interesting thing is to see that Slash himself didn't take it to the heart at the time, when he even told "that's sorta funny", and then never talked about it again ... is their fans who got really offended for years and years just because of something that is a fallacy meanly promoted by the press. To be honest no one can understand if they really got offended or if they just like to use this easy but fake argument to defend Slash, everytime someone criticize Slash.
 
So, the big mistery remains ... why the hell this fallacy still is so important for some people?
 
I think the answer to this question, has nothing to do with the ?cancer? term but, it?s in the second half of Axl?s comment:

?(?) the less anyone heard of (?) his supporters, the better?

This, my friends, is what really made Slash?s fans go mad ? this is what makes them crying and complaining for years ? and this is why they keep talking about the ?cancer?, over and over again, everytime they can ? they got really pissed with this, because they felt affected.

So, everytime they come to criticize Axl, in defense of Slash, because of the ?cancer? comment, they can?t really be taken serious ? because they aren?t impartial at all. They are in the middle of the feud. And everytime they do that, they prove Axl was absolutely right about what he said ? the less we heard of them , the better.

 

Personally I think any fan who takes a side between these two who have never met either one of them or know them on any kind of level... just makes them self look silly.

Besides... Axl proved himself the stronger right? So who cares.

IMO. If they both had acted half as mature as Duff has over the past 15 years... Then they'd probably be on friendly terms by now.

I think you are perhaps overthinking it.

People took to that comment because it was so over the top.  OK, so you had a falling out with a fellow band member.  Hey, shit happens.

So he's "a cancer best removed"?  You don't think people will find that a bit much?

Same thing with saying that one of them will be dead in a box before they talk again.  People are going to think that's a bit much.

And as we've all said many times, this hyperbole is further compounded by the fact that Axl never comes out and says what the problems between them are.  Maybe once people heard it, they'd understand it a bit better.  But we can't force him to tell us.

You really don't have a clear grasp about all of his grievances yet? I actually strongly disagree and think hes made it clear. He's never come out and said on this day Slash lied about exactly this, or Slash called me a bad name on this day or anything like that, but I think it's clear.

I totally agree.

I just shake my head at the Axl superfans that take up all his causes as their own as some sort of misguided mission of loyalty.  But, I also shake my head at the Slash lovers who will rip Axl to shreds because Axl had a falling out with Slash.

It's not your fight.

That being said, you can still talk about how both men have dealt with this publically, and how that all looks.  That's a legit topic.

When I ask, I usually get vague fan theories.  Nothing concrete.

And even they aren't consistent.  What an Axl loyalist might see as a grave offense is something a Slash backer might roll their eyes at.  And neither side will ever really concede their guy's faults.

He didn't say "he is", that's a statement ... he said "in a nutshell, I consider" ... it's quite different, but, as I also said in my first post I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing to say ...


Yes, I understand that ...  in the heat of the moment, with the press making highlights like that, people could find it too much. But, after 6 years, people repeating this, over and over again, it's also too much ... even Slash didn't cared that much ... so, the only explanation is, Slash's fans got really pissed with that, so they use it like a weapon everytime they can.



Somehow, I can agree with you on this ... maybe Axl shouldn't had talk "in a nutshell" maybe he should had said everything he was thinking about ...

The media typically focuses on sensationalism and negativity, some more than others, it is what gets them views.

Controversy is good for business.

Well, he doesn't have to say anything he doesn't want to.  He doesn't want to clarify, he doesn't owe anyone a clarification.

However, in my opinion, he's not doing a guy like you any favors.  Someone who passionately wants to defend him against some of the harsher criticism, but he's not giving you much to work with.  I often remark how the man himself never seems as invested as some of his fans.

True.

But its also an indirect outcome of only talking every blue moon.  When you do that, whatever you say when you do decide to speak gets repeated over and over again because there is nothing new to work with.

Good points GUNNER.

Like you said just another example of people exaggerating and twisting what was actually said.
Was it too much? Well some people need to be told something using strong language otherwise they won't get it.

It's like that scene from Dumb & Dumber, "So you're telling me there's a chance?".... ;)



/jarmo

The cancer line would have gotten attention no matter who what where why how when. It's a harsh term whether Slash deserved to be described as a cancer or not.

In that case, I agree.  And I think its unrealistic to not expect people to react how they did.

It's not "the media" out to get poor Axl.  Its people saying "dude, what the fuck...".

Yesss,, BlahBlahBlah + BlahBlahBla = More BlahBlagBlahEtc !!!

 : ok:

Duff is really making the rounds for his book, which I shouldn't have pre ordered, I should have just gone to the book store to get it, now I have to wait a week.

But he has said a few times in regards to Axl, that just talking some things out were a great thing for him and since Duff was always in lock step with Slash I'm sure Axl could do the same with him if he wanted to.

You can analyze, over-rationalize, and overthink the wording of this comment all you want.  As others have suggested, by merely placing Slash's name in the same sentence as the word "cancer", people are going to react strongly to it, because "cancer" is a strong, pejorative word when used in that sense regardless of the precise wording.

It's not really much different than Axl writing the word "niggers" in "One in a Million" despite the fact that he may have meant something else.  Certain words are provocative and inciting, regardless of the exact wording of the sentence where they are used.


Slash's mother was dying (not dead) at the time Axl said this.  Axl's comments were published in Spring 2009 and Slash's mother died in June 2009.

And really -- dying, dead -- it doesn't matter.  It was still an incredibly insensitive term to use when Slash was enduring that.  Your best defense for Axl (and I've heard others say this) was that he possibly wasn't aware of Ola Hudson's illness when he said that.


Actually, Slash responded a couple different ways to the "cancer" comment.  One of them was the "kinda funny" remark.  But here was the other one....

SOURCE: http://chinese-democracy.blogspot.com/2010/04/slash-responds-to-axl-rose-calling-him.html (http://chinese-democracy.blogspot.com/2010/04/slash-responds-to-axl-rose-calling-him.html)

Furthermore the guitarist, who lost his mother to lung cancer last June, reveals that though he agrees with the sentiment behind some of Rose's comments, the singer's choice of wording was tough to take.

"The cancer thing, I'll go with him on that, that fits into his description of things.  I wouldn't use the word 'cancer' but I haven't gone anywhere and I don't seem to be going anywhere so that's justified," Slash says, before pausing to reflect. "Actually, I lost my mom to cancer so that was a little bit of hard rhetoric at that particular time, but it's typical Axl stuff ... I know how he comes off and how he really is, so I give him credit where hopefully it's due."


For the record, the rest of these comments ties into the other response Slash made, about how Axl considers him a cancer since he is still out there, still touring, and doing well.

Duff is asked about Slash's "never say never" remark. 

94.5 KATS: Normally this wouldn't be on my radar, but since Slash came out last Thursday or Friday and was asked about a GN'R reunion...is that something that you would ever entertain?

Duff McKagan: Now you hear what you just said? He came out...because he was asked. Slash didn't come out, he was asked by somebody right? And I think he did a real nice job, it's a tough question to answer, you know that? It's like asking someone what's your deal? It's not like oh, what's my deal I don't know. So he did a nice job. You know, that band created such great music.

We could play again. Of course. I think we've all thought that over the years.

@4:20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmgHB9tmp0g

Oh ... I thought Slash's mother was already dead when Axl said that ... then, maybe you're right .... maybe he wasn't aware of Ola Hudson's illness when he said that ... or, maybe he was, I don't know ... nobody knows ... so it's kind of absurd to accuse him as if he was aware of that situation.

Nothing in his interview says he was aware of that. Besides didn't Axl's mother also died form cancer in 2002? I read somewhere she did.

Obviously he used the word "cancer" as a common term ... only people who see the Devil in Axl can asure he was being mean regarding Slash's mother, or whishing Slash was dead.

Again, my question was pretty simple ... why does people still use that against Axl everytime they can, after 6 years? Are you going to tell me that whoever use that as a weapon, constantly, have Ola Hudson in mind? Let's not be hypocrite ... people still use this because they are pissed because Axl told them to shut up. So, they can't be taken serious everytime they talk about the cancer, over and over again ... they are in the middle of this feud ... they aren't impartial ... they are not thinking about Slash nor Ola.

I don't seriously think the comment had anything to do with Slash's mother.

I do absolutely believe it was an incredibly poor choice of words and its a totally dishonest stance to say you don't get the fallout over them.

With all due respect, what are you?

You sound Axl's like defense attorney, agent, and manager all rolled into one here.  I think you are a hard sell as someone just calling it down the middle.

I'm just a GN'R fan, from all the eras, giving his opinion.

I like Slash as a guitar player, but I don't consider myself his personal supporter, so I guess Axl wasn't talking about me when he said ?(?) the less anyone heard of (?) his supporters, the better? ... this puts me out of the feud, so I can give my impartial opinion.

All I said it's a result of my own reflection ... I can be totally wrong, but it's my opinion ... I never heard Axl's opinion about this, so there's no chance of me being his defense lawyer, because I don't even know what he thinks about it.

 :)

No worries.  I just thought you came across as his advocate on this particular case.

You have some pretty long posts built around the concept he's not getting a fair shake.  To be fair, your posts were well written and well sourced, but I thought it was obvious you had a very emotional dog in the fight.  So it struck me odd you were chiding people for being invested one way or the other.

Slash was a drunk and a drug addict for how many years again?  More than he has been sober probably.  This same guy that was co stonefly under the influence was also the one never to shy away from a media interview.  Seems one month can't last without hearing a slash quote.  Reading a interview.  Or seeing him on TV.   I am sure over the years he has not always been in the best condition during a lot of these interviews

Then you get a guy like Axl.  Who shys away from interviews.  Very minimal exposure to any press over the years.  From what I know, never has really had any substance abuse problems.   Then to see slash do what you hate and being in a condition you hate talking about top a you hate.   I can see why Axl would be a little pissed over the years

On a lighter note

A coworker said to me today.  Hey Baconman.  I heard the original guns n roses is going to be getting back together!   He said he read it online. Hahahaha.  So there you go!

When I read "Hey Baconman".....   :hihi:

Don't be surprised if those that disagree with you try to make the topic about you, instead of what you said....
You're bringing up things some don't necessarily want to think about. Because thinking about being wrong about something doesn't exist in that world!  :hihi:

You bring up good points that are often overlooked.
"He used a bad word and was mean!" instead of thinking about what was actually said and what it meant.




/jarmo

Yeah, I got the same on another board where they know I'm a fan.

I had to break some hearts and crush some dreams.

In Summary, More BlahBlah

 8)

Q. Over the past few years you've played, separately, with your former Guns N' Roses bandmates Axl Rose and Slash. The two of them haven't talked in decades. A chapter in your book is titled, "Let Go of Resentments." Any advice for a certain singer and guitarist?

Duff McKagan: I just wrote about something that I understand about myself. Over time I've gotten rid of a lot of resentment I didn't know I was even carrying around. I don't try to impart anything in the book, though, but if I can write about things without being preachy and people get something out of it, that's great.

http://www.northjersey.com/arts-and-entertainment/books/veteran-rocker-finds-balancein-his-life-1.1330223

Axl claimed to have never read Duff's first book. I wonder if he has since and or plans to read this one.

I think Duff hits the nail on the head with the whole resentment thing. Sometimes you just need to take a step back and disassociate yourself from the whole thing and analyze the why there is an issue. Being in a band gets more difficult as time goes on. Priorities change. People develop other interests, whereas once upon a time the main focus was the band and the music.

I think people need to address the situation before they can totally move on.

But you can also ask if you are just going to be mad for the rest of your life.

What's the payoff?  What are you getting out holding onto that white hot hate?  Never going to be besties again?  Obviously.  But surely there is some middle ground. 

This is not me saying he needs to reunite the band, but maybe get to a place where if the subject of the guy comes up, you don't Hulk up and start spewing invective usually reserved for the drunk driver that killed a family member.  You just wind up looking like a crazy person.

I agree. There is so much history between all 5 of the original members. They overcame the odds and became the biggest band in the world. Nobody else but those 5 can say that. They all shared in the experience. They will always have that journey in common.

To me thats why its so sad. Lifes too short. Appreciate what the group created.

No, that's you telling somebody how to live their life.

Somebody, who I suspect, has managed to achieve things in his life that most of us here, including you, could only dream of.

How do you react when somebody questions you and what kind of fan you are? Exactly the way you tell Axl not to react about things that happened in his life, not things he read on a fan message board....
With that in mind, it's hard to take you seriously.



/jarmo

No, its me suggesting an option on how to handle it publicly if you don't want to be seen like a bitter loon.

We have long impassioned pleas on this board for people to not judge Axl as harshly for how he puts things.

There's two options there, if that is your aim.  Have collective human nature go 180 degrees...or, Axl stops feeding right into people's well established perception of him.

Former, never going to happen.  Latter, he doens't care to make happen.

So nothing will ever change.  I'm telling you to make your peace with it.



Ultimately?  I dismiss it out of hand. 

It has no relevance to me, personally.  Publicly, I am confident enough people can read your posts when you go down that road and make their own call on the merits of your "logic".  I trust the folks.

But what I'm not going to do is come on here and rant and rave like a lunatic about you.  Because, at that point, when people start to say "hey, that dude's crazy"...well, what am I giving them to work with?  Of course they are going to think that.  You talk in crazy terms, people think you are crazy.  Way of the world.

It's just like the song says : Why you act crazy?  Not an act maybe.

In essence, you're telling him how to live his life so he appears in a way you'd prefer.
Same shit. No matter how you try to dress it up.

And if I tell you how to post in order to not appear like a bitter sad wannabe fan? You're there with your "how dare you?" mentality.
 :hihi:



Yeah, and that's why you throw your tantrums. Please.  ::)
You just talk, and then act the opposite. Hard to take you seriously.




/jarmo

I suggest you all listen to Chris Jericho's podcast with Duff from today. It's an amazing interview, and they talk about Axl a lot. It really sounds like Duff would LOVE to do Guns N Roses full time with just Axl and OR with Slash/Izzy/ Steven etc .. he talks about Izzy a little bit too.

I just started listening.. Duff's always a good interview I think.

OK, we'll try this again.

This whole conversation started when GUNNER did his big long thing about the "cancer" comment.  That's the conversation you sauntered into and hijacked.

When people heard that, the reaction was that it was over the top.  It keeps getting brought up because it was over the top.  This will never, ever, ever, ever change.  No one is going to care about the "I think what he was saying..." addendum.  It was angry Axl being angry Axl in the eyes of the many.

Since human nature will not change, and nor is Axl likely to change, impassioned pleas that he's not getting a fair shake are spinning your wheels.  I admire GUNNER's fire, but its ultimately a fool's errand.

Yeah he is... He is smart and funny.. I believe around the 18 minute mark is when they start discussing guns

Helps that Chris is a fan.  I'm going to check it out.

I agree that Duff is often a good interview.

Didn't hijack shit.
You started questioning the poster, making it about that instead of what was said. Typical. Same shit is pulled by people who got nothing to say.


Then you start going on about what Axl should do blah blah blah. When it's pointed out to you that when you're told how to behave, you get defensive and don't seem to like it.
So, does this mean you're gonna be open to suggestions on how to behave from now on? :D

Of course not. You're one of those who's quick to dish out advice to others, while you sit there hiding behind your keyboard saying things like "I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong". Which are just empty words. You can never be wrong when you can selectively read what you want and ignore anything that proves you wrong! Amazing. :D



Of course.
When the ability to think freely is extremely limited. The poster brought up good points. Instead of taking it in, it's just met with the usual "but that does not agree with what I already think so you're wrong" and "who do you think you are?".  :P

I'm not gonna let somebody bringing up good pints get "silenced" by somebody like you because you don't like it.




/jarmo

He was writing articles for ESPN for a bit.  They were good.

He brought up points that are never going to resonate with anything other than Axl superfans.

You either get that concept or you don't.  But I only explain things twice.

He and I had a fine conversation about it, actually.  Differnet opinions, but nary a cross word uttered either way.

Things went south when you came in and decided to talk about me instead of the topic.  Not exactly "man bites dog" caliber news.

You mean this?
http://podcastone.com/Talk-Is-Jericho


Selective memory.

This kind of shit I have a problem with:


Nobody needs to defend themselves because they choose to defend Axl and/or the band on this site.


With all due respect, what are you? Obviously you have selective memory.




/jarmo

How were they cross words?

He and I had further conversation after it.  And nobody had to flex their muscles or threaten the other guy.  We just talked.

It can happen.

Yes that is the link for duffs interview with Jericho.

Funny.

I'm just talking as well. What are you? Who are you to tell Axl how to live his life?

 :D




Didn't he do this podcast a while back?

The one where he said the record company rips them off....

Edited to add: Sorry, it was the Jasta podcast!


/jarmo

Hey guys,

Don't need to discuss because of me.

It was just a reflection and a post ... people doesn't need to get crazy with it ... things can be discussed, but that's it.

Actually I don't think about it as much as those who keep talking about the cancer after 6 years ... wow ... 6 years ... it has to be something really important for those people.

Why ask me?

Go ask somebody who did that, I would think.

No worries, man.  I didn't think we had a hint of a problem.

And I thought the discussion went fine.

 :beer:

All good.
I think you brought up good points and I don't think it deserves a response such as "what are you?".

You don't need to defend yourself when you bring up that kind of points offering the point of view of a fan. Instead of one of those objective free thinking complainers.   :peace:



/jarmo

Perhaps he didn't know he was supposed to be insulted.  Seems like it was news to him.

It's enough that he answered to you.

You're not the person here who people need to answer to who they are. Get over yourself already.  : ok:




Listen to Duff talk about playing in La Paz.
He didn't watch it on Youtube, he was there.

He gives credit to Axl for pulling it off.

Something I remember some thinking it was like playing a gig in a hot climate.  :rofl:




/jarmo

Of course Duff was there, he was playing. Can I ask why you piss on people for not being able to attend most concerts and viewing highlights on youtube? Maybe I missed you explaining that. Not everyone can afford to attend concerts around the world. Some people's only access to there favorite band are through avenues like youtube.

He's just big timing you.

That was a great listen; lots of good stuff was discussed.  One of the interesting bits was his take on learning the Chinese Democracy songs, that it was pretty intuitive for him because Tommy's approach to bass is similar to his.

Sure.
Let me explain.
It wasn't a dig at people who didn't attend. Not at all.


Some things you can't understand or relate to unless you experience it yourself. I had certain people tell me that it's no big deal to play a show at high altitude in La Paz because you can prepare for it, like you can prepare for a show in a warm climate.

No matter how you try to explain that it's not the same thing, it didn't matter. Giving some credit to Axl is almost impossible, so there's a need to discredit what he and GN'R did. It wasn't a big deal, anybody would do the same and so on.

Listening to Duff, he really explained it very well and it was nice hearing him say similar things that I said last year. Things people tried to brush off as nothing. I guess they'd be the first ones to tell Duff playing La Paz is no big deal.... :D

Hope that explains my comments, and I'm sorry if it offended you.




/jarmo

Gotcha!! As a singer I give him total credit. Its hard enough pulling off a 3 hour show. Imagine having to do it in that environment?

FYI: didnt offend me. I was just curious.

No worries.

Altitude sickness isn't a joke....



/jarmo

That plus its dry air. Not really conducive for singing.

I thought it was cool that Duff saidhe liked playing Catcher

Duff also said he still as time to get back to playing stadiums ... That leads me to believe that at some point it will happen.

What do you guys think in regards to a reunited GN'R playing a worldwide stadium tour?

I think a first run can be done without any new music out, pretty easily. Not 100% sure about the US, but then again that's the country with most difficulty introducing the new line-up. So, a reunited GN'R would probably go over quite well. There's a question about the state of rock music in general though.

For a second run... not quite sure. I think they would have to have an album or a couple of singles out in order to fill stadiums. Arenas would probably be no problem without new music, stadiums in certain markets perhaps.

Yeah. He also mentioned the bass parts Tommy wrote are kinda similar to his style since they're both from similar backgrounds.

Makes sense.



/jarmo

Yeah, that's something I hadn't thought of before Duff mentioned that.. If Duff had still been in the band that recorded Chinese, the bass parts probably wouldn't be all that different than what Tommy recorded.

Plus... these songs are so old... that Duff might have even been involved with some of them... what was it 96 early 97 when Duff was still hanging around... he might have worked on Catcher originally.

I'm pretty sure they'd do the big city football stadiums in the US no problem the first go around, at least in the real big cities.. second time around would probably go back to the basketball arenas with or without new music.

If it ever happened... I could see them be like nahhhh to the big tour and just play a few shows in some small places just for fun like.

I think it would be huge worldwide ( including the US).

First run at least, what are your thoughts about a second run?

I don't think they would do stadiums because you can't do them everywhere.

You are probably better off doing arenas and 2 nights in cities where you can move the tickets.

AC/DC is doing stadiums....
Oh no, here we go...  :hihi:




/jarmo

Major cities and a release to pique the interest of the public. GNR will always be big in one form or another. They ( the originals) are one of those special bands.

Duff is asked about the possibility of a Guns N' Roses reunion in this interview @5:20:

http://media.waaf.com/a/105087836/duff-mckagan-5-13-15.htm

Theres only so many times he can answer the question and avoid saying well Axl won't play with Slash ha

Side note: I'm really surprised that this thread hasnt been moved to the dead horse section.

Every time somebody says that .. it immediately gets moved ... so why say that?

Give jarmo a break... he's letting us talk about all of this... why look to start something?

Im not looking to start anything with Jarmo. Just really surprised this thread has been here so long. Pretty good conversations might I add.

Because its not a dead horse. its relevant to what's being discussed about GNR by Duff and Slash.. and it's really the only GNR related stuff going on at the moment. So yea.. it's fun to talk about

But every time somebody posts im surprised this is still here... it immediately gets moved... so I dont think its a good thing to say.

Gotcha!! No offense to anyone

Another interview with Duff.  He says his initial reaction to replacing Tommy on tour was "oh hell no", then he thought about it.  On listening to Guns N' Roses songs in preparation for the shows he says "holy crap we were a great band."

He's also asked about Slash's comment.

In the last third of the interview: http://www.q1043.com/media/podcast-rock-n-roll-morning-show-soundfiles/duff-mckagan-interview-26039217/

Ha!  I thought the same thing.  The answer, IMO, is simple:  he doesn't want to.  Unfortunately, that answer isn't sexy enough or good enough for most people.  It's easy to think, what a waste, especially considering that their collective talent is so good, it should outweigh any differences they have.  But old feelings die hard.

IF the reunion were to happen, Guns would easily sell out a stadium tour -especially in the NYC area.... I always thought that Tommy was similar to Duff in terms of style and personality.

I liked the interview where Duff said he was listening to "November Rain" with his daughter and actually at the point of enjoying the songs. A lot of artists have a hard time listening to their own music unless they're working on a reissue project.

You know what..let me give my opinion on something which is probably going to be unpopular. I've always supported all of the lineups in this band. Maybe because at the end of the day I am a big Axl Rose fan. But i've come to the conclusion that the only way to move forward is a reunion of some sort.

Those guys created such an incredible body of work in such a short period of time. As much as I used to believe that the reason they are still a major draw is because of the kickass lineup that he currently has, I know in my heart that its not the case.

Most people are there just to see Axl Rose and to hear the hits. The fact that theyve remained a major draw speaks to the impact that the originals had on music in general. I mean I dont know of any other band that replaced every member except the singer and managed to remain relevant. Speaks volumes.

A lot of truth here.

Relaunching the band with a totally new line-up was going to be a daunting task no matter what.  Maybe there was no way it would have worked.  But the half ass way Axl did it insured that it had no shot of success.

But Axl is weird in that he doesn't care.  Most guys that achieve his levels of fame and eventually found themselves playing in clubs, some of which don't even sell out...they would give their left nut for another crack at the big time.  But with Axl, he has that option right in front of him and simply does not care.

I often roll my eyes at the "there is only one Axl Rose" routine.  It's too often used as a crutch to explain away dumb or irresponsible behavior and try and couch it as something noble or downright commendable.

But it applies here.  Can't think of literally one other guy that achieved Axl's level of fame and has such little regard for pissing it all away.  And to have such an easy way to get it back in a heartbeat, and pass.

Pretty unheard of.

The false notion that Axl doesn't care is once again repeated by those who think they have an idea.

What doesn't he care about? He gives his all in front of the audience at every show, playing way longer than the average concert. When he has something to say, he says it.
What he doesn't seem to care about is the self promoting in order to get headlines and gain attention. He doesn't go out of his way to find the paparazzi or talk to TMZ.

But the "he doesn't care" phrase. Once again, exaggerated generalization because he doesn't do what you think he should.

He has more integrity compared to many other in the business, and unfortunately some fans can't appreciate it, but instead see it as  something negative and him "not caring".
As seen above, the same old routine is repeated. It's not good enough that Axl is Axl for them. He shouldn't be Axl, he should be something else that fits their own person ideas of Axl. At the end of the day, who are they to tell him how to live his life? ;)


/jarmo

I actually admire that part of him. He's stuck to his "Guns" no matter what. The easy thing to do would be to sell out. The only reason to do a reunion would be to make new music.

But if he reunited the band tomorrow, you'd be right onboard, right?

That's a quibble I have always had for this respect for Axl the dedicated fighter for truth, justice, and not giving in.  Because if you truly hold that in such high regard, how could you embrace a reunion?

I think the reality is that all of us are such Axl fans, we are going to support him no matter what.  Whether that be a totally improbably reunion tour, or an album that comes out in 2022 featuring a cast of thousands.  I really can't see any of us still with the guy not supporting him either way.

I would be on board. But it probably means that he's doing it for the right reasons. He doesnt strike me as the cash grab type. If he was he wouldve reunited with the old lineup years ago.

The second he does a reunion, the new band is dead.  Its why he didn't go to the RNR HOF. 

You can't get up there with the originals and crank out 'Paradise City' and then say "well, that was fun, but now I'm going back on tour with DJ Ashba."  No one would comprehend or accept that.  Once you open that door even a crack, the fans will kick it right in.

A lot of fans go see the current band because its all they can get.  As you said, people still want to see Axl and still want to hear him sing GNR songs.  That will never change.  And if its with DJ Ashba and Ron Thal...well, it will just have to do.

I don't ever see a reunion anyway.  But the first thing that needs to happen...yes, even more important than patching it up with Slash, would be Axl accepting that "nuGNR" is over. 

Because you can't do both.

I agree. Its one or the other.

I agree with all of this. Axl is a bad ass and I love him for it and yes... he give his all during performances.

I respect everything Axl has done in terms of doing what he feels is right. Trouble is, I don't always agree with his decisions or how he goes about his business lol.

If he never wants to play with Slash again... all the power to him. I just wish I could understand it better... if he can patch everything up with Duff... there's no reason he cant do the same with Slash.

I believe in when there's smoke... there is fire. I would not fall down in shock if I read its happening at some point. Compared to a year or two ago when I thought 100 percent never. Truth is... GNR doesn't have anything set in stone for the near future. So anything could happen.

Duff saying that Izzy just sends him a bridge...and he doesn't need to hear it. He just says yes.

Shit like that about those guys just makes me smile.

IF and it might be a big IF Axl is still planning on releasing new songs from the CD era under the GNR name .. then any kind of reunion would have to take place after that happens.

Del James posting a picture of Slash on twitter made my jaw drop.

Maybe there has been some contact... who knows.

I want something from GNR... whether its a new album or a reunion or both...all of it is exciting to me.

Yeah, you might think "why would he do that?" about something. But unless, you're him, it might not make sense to you.
And also, there's things we don't know about. So, it's like for the outside world, something might look odd, but it might be the best scenario in that situation.




/jarmo

Which is logical.

If your determination is that whatever Axl winds up doing was correct, righteous and noble...where is your credibility?  You will literally champion anything the man does.  Put out CD II?  Great move!  Reunite the band?  Great move!  Do press?  Great move!  Don't do press?  Great move!  Tour?  Great move!  Go into hiding?  Great move!

You reach a point where you are more of a clapping seal than any sort of rational thinker. 

And I'm not sure there is a more pointless comment than "he's going to do what he wants to do no matter what you think/say/want."  No shit.  What does that add to the discourse?  Zip. 

Not even to mention no one has ever started out a conversation with "here is what I want/expect/demand, or there will just be HELL TO PAY!!"  No one has ever said that in the history of ever.  That's a false premise with no relevance in a serious discussion.

No question about it.

The best pitch for a reunion tour is that Axl finally decides to cash out with the new band for a host of very plausible reasons.  And he just wants to go out on a high note.

Thing is, there is next to no evidence he gives a damn about any of that sort of thing.  Hard to forecast it.

Here is the problem with that, in my opinion.

Whenever any of this talk ever starts, Axl is not involved.  Its a few of the others talking, some industry type talking, whoever.  And we fans will then look for connections and start to spin yarns about how it might all mean something.

Then, Axl re-emerges from his cocoon somewhere down the line, and pretty much can't believe the question you just asked him.  No, there isn't going to be any reunion.  Why the hell would you think that?

And then an entire fanbase just says.....damn.

Yes but I think Duffs re emergence in Axl life is the difference now .

It's only natural that makes Axl view the past differently.

Hey, its a hope.

I'd be 100% lying if I didn't think that very thing when he came back to play the shows last year.  That even if he took just a few quiet moments when it was just the 2 of them to say, sort of, "you know...this really wouldn't be that hard."

I just have no faith Axl would really entertain it.

And the opposite is so much better? There's not much rational thinking involved in whining about almost every single thing Axl chooses to do.

If you need to find some fault with everything GN'R does, there's something wrong. But hey, gotta maintain that image of being a free thinking rational thinker, even though evidence suggests thinking isn't high on the priority list.

"Whatever happens, happens" is a far better mentality to have than "Whatever happens shouldn't have happened the way it happened because I say so and I'm here telling you about it year after year".  :P



/jarmo

Is whatever happens, happens truly a better mentality? I mean I'm sure even if you dont want to share it here, you have an opinion on what you think would be best for GNR as an entity? 

Well, yeah.  What credibility does a pom-pom waver have?  Pretty much none.  

You don't even really have to check in with them to see what they think, because you already know.  They support it fully, it was a brilliant move by Axl, and why would anyone question it?  It's the answer to literally everything.

Why waste the time asking?



And if this were reality, I would agree with you.  Extremism in any direction is not terribly useful.

Where its not reality is the fact that I (or anyone else that you are just totally breezy about) don't even remotely whine about almost every single thing Axl chooses to do.  There's things we agree with, and things we don't.  We just don't share your vested interest to never speak out of turn.

But if there truly was someone that just shit on everything, I would say the same thing about them.  Why bother asking, because the answer is always the same.  There are several such types over at MYGNR.  They are not to be taken seriously.

A superfan apologist and an irrational hater are flipsides of the same impractical coin.  And it doesn't help that both think they are just doing god's work and anyone that deviates from their direction "just doesn't get it".

Its foolishness.

Exactly.  Why ever even have a conversation about anything?  Not just GNR, but anything.

Logically, you have an opinion on matters.  Its just that too often some are quick to praise the good, but so totally relucrtant to question the bad, you get the cop out "well, its not my place to say" or "what I think won't change anything."

The second I see those type answers, or others in a similar vein, you know that's their version of dissent.  They just see value in never being able to be quoted saying something bad.

Axl has made me scratch my head a bunch of times with some things he has said and some things GNR has done or haven't done. But I only know a fraction of the story.

Some people... won't ever question him..and will say this is the best version of GNR ever, no matter who is in the band.. that kinda stuff. That's fine.. they are allowed.

DX I agree with you often about certain things GNR related,  but I do not understand why you continue to have this same fight about being objective or not over and over. It's kinda futile. 

My opinion is that people in the GN'R camp have a better understanding about what the best thing for GN'R is than some keyboard warriors hiding behind their usernames secretly wishing their opinions would be taken into account when making decisions.

You tell me, which seems better? Constant need to look for faults with everything or just accept reality and move on?






Seriously. You and your need for credibility.
You don't have credibility just because you whine. That just makes you a whiny person.

You keep bringing up thinking. So how come your way of thinking is so extremely narrow minded and limited?





You really offered a great example of this the other day when somebody brought up points that contrast yours and your best reply was "who are you?". Says a lot.

There was your chance to show everybody your ability to think and analyze what was said, but no. Not interested. It seems to me this talking out of turn is just an excuse to complain. Very little thinking involved, like I said.

If you go trough life thinking everything is "wrong" because it doesn't suit your so called agenda, then too bad.
Not every decision is gonna please you. You'll have to accept it. Maybe the decision works for one person only, and that's fine. You'll just need to come to terms with this. The sooner the better.


So yeah, regarding the mentality. While many of us were enjoying the tour and shows, some were finding the time to complain about something about it.
And now? No shows to complain about... But those in the first group sure can look back at fun times! :)





This is human nature. Some people like NOW. This exact moment is the best time in their life. Not yesterday or last week. Now rules.
It's that simple.

Of they just have a different opinion from others. :)





/jarmo

Ok...but what if you don't necesarily agree with the moves they are making? Do you just accept it and move on or are you comfortable saying that whats being done by the GNR camp is probably in the best interest of the band?

I don't bring it up, but I respond when its brought up.  If someone else wants to have the conversation, I have the conversation.

If it was never brought up by anyone again, you'd never hear it from me.

But if it is brought up, like you say, not much new ground being covered here.  You know what you're getting, I should think.

No one has ever said this.  Not one time. 

It only exists in your noggin.  Asking people to accept its happening anywhere else is sort of quizzical. 

But its absolutely why people mock it when you try and run it up the flagpole.  It's silly.

And this would be the conversation I had with another poster that went on without incident?

And then you decided the next day to chime in with your take that what really happened was a grave insult, and insisted on that being the case, even after being told by both of us (at least twice) it wasn't like that at all?

Think we covered that, no?  Why the rerun?

What's the difference between a 6 week old puppy and DgenX?

In 6 weeks the puppy will stop whining.  :hihi:

Let me put it this way. Would you like to surround yourself with people who always try find things to complain about so they don't appear like they're too friendly with you? Gotta appear cool you know.
And they only support you when you do something that works for them. If you do something for yourself, they'll call you selfish.

How long would you put up with that before you had a talk with these people?





No one said it because it's secret. Duh!

Are you honestly telling me these so called experts post only for their own enjoyment? Come on. Either they want some kind of attention from other fans, or they want attention from people in and/or around the band.
I bet if you were singled out by a band member, you'd wear it like some kind of badge of honor. :D

You've already proven to be somebody who cares about the way you appear on a fan forum. Speaks volumes.


It's like sports fans who think they know better than the coach and/or team owner....




Because it proves my point. You keep using big phrases and offer zero proof of living up to those words. :)
Do, don't type!

Don't tell me you're able to think and you're rational, and then when somebody posts something that would make you think, you just back into your corner and come back with "who are you?". Just a hint for the next time!


All this "Axl doesn't care" bullshit you type. Why do you have to make it sound like he doesn't care about anything? Same thing when you claimed Robin wants nothing to do with GN'R. You have an issue with stating something less general and negative? You always have to paint with broad strokes? Because we all know that kind of statements are just false, and there's evidence to prove it. Yet, with all that free thinking ability, you still manage to blurt out this kind of nonsense time after time.




/jarmo

But both are adorable.

This is a lot of supposition on your part with nothing to support it.  Other than your pretty strong hunch, of course.  Which, of course, is rock solid.

I just don't know how seriously we are supposed to take that.  A guy telling the other guy what he REALLY thinks, so you can do both parts of the conversation and have it go your way.

Who needs other people at that point?  You can do that with a mirror.

I don't see a lot of strong evidence Robin wants much to do with GNR.  If you do, good for you.  But I don't see it.

A guy who bolts right before the album comes out to go play in another band instead.  Bolts on a band and a album that has given him more creative freedom and a chance to show his wares than any other major band he had been in up to that point.  A theoretical follow up album also largely containing his work, but no involvement from him.

Where is this evidence he's still interested in being in the fold?  What, because he got on stage and did 'Better' with them that time?  That's your big "gotcha" moment?

Pretty flimsy. 

If I was going to try and argue the point that you are trying to argue, I'd want something a hell of a lot more convincing than that to go to battle with.

Well I can assume just like you.
Fair enough?

Unlike you assuming about a big international rock band, I've actually encountered a bunch of fans over the year, both in real life and online.  :)




Is that Stuart Smalley?  ;)


Once again, you point out that I assume things, well that's what you do most of the time but you never point out how your "Axl doesn't care" posts are nothing but assumptions and generalizations. Why not?

Why is me assuming about the motives of a certain clique of fans a big enough deal for you to bring it up, but you assuming day in and day out about a band, and business you have little knowledge about, fair?
I'm just curious about that and thinking rationally!

People want to be special. Either they want others in their group to idolize them and/or they want reaffirmation from their idols.
There's nothing weird about it. Not saying everybody is like that. Before you jump to your generalizations.

When a person gets upset because a thread gets moved, I assume he's upset because he's not getting the attention he thinks he deserves. That's my rationale.




Because he didn't join the band it means "he doesn't want anything to do with the band"?
Wouldn't rational thinking make you go "Unless he says he doesn't want anything to do with the band, I'll assume that isn't necessarily true and I won't make misguided generalizations like that in public"?

So you're telling me everybody who never went back to an old job/team/band/partner/whatever wouldn't want to go back? Is that your rational thinking?

Please tell me that's not how your mind works.




/jarmo

I think you can theorize why a person says what they says and why they might think what they think based on things they've said.

I'd probably leave it there and stop short of claiming actual clairvoyance, however.  Leave that to Professor X.

No, I'm saying this is what I think about Robin Finck and GNR and I think it for the reasons I've stated.

Now I'm not too sure about this as a fact or something I dreamt.  But somewhere I have this belief that Axl (or those close to him) has alluded to wanting an apology in the mainstream media, addressing the accusations made by Slash. If this  is the case, then there clearly is work to be done before others to make a reunion even register on Axls radar.

Even if the apology was made, it wouldn't be a case of Slash saying "Hey man, I've done what you've asked,lets get it on...."

There would be a whole host of demands/caveats to do just a show, let alone a tour, from both all sides. Axl has had the opportunity to bow to demand, RRHOF, and chose to say away,partly because of the notion of what it is, how people get chosen and the clear motives (in the case of Gn'R) to be "first" in getting the reunion done. This was more about them rather than the band.

Axl has metaphorically been butt fucked by original band before, some,well Duff, he's made his peace with, Izzy, well is just Izzy and Axl gets it.  Steven hasn't a prayer of getting the gig (should it happen (Unreliable and looks likely to going back to being a user a any time) and then there is Slash. Axl has commented publicly that he doesn't doubt his ability to do a tour, but there is the baggage that goes with him, be it the person, his entourage and just the overall package.  Is the intrusions, the responsibility and the general hassle worth it.  In Axl's world no, and I'm thinking, I don't blame him for taking this stance.

But your reasons are basically "because he took an offer to go on tour with another band and never came back".
In your mind that equals "he wants nothing to do with GN'R and never wanted/wants to come back".

Please tell me you're not that limited in your thinking. Another chance for you to prove the ability to rational free thinking.


Let's say there's something in your life that you never managed to achieve yet (I know, there really isn't, but let's just assume), does that mean you don't want achieve it, or do you just start telling yourself you never wanted it in the first place to feel better about it?






/jarmo

Jarmo, do you think Robin is coming back?

No I don't. I'm talking about the near future. I wouldn't say "he's never coming back" because I got no idea.


But I know nothing about whether or not he wants "nothing to do with GN'R".

Why not just stick to reporting the facts? Robin left to go on tour with another band. Easy.
Instead of generalizing and assuming things you know nothing about basically.

Now, I'm aware that if you want to believe that Robin wants nothing to do with GN'R, because that is how you want things to be, then of course you'll keep telling yourself that. But if you're gonna make that kind of statements in public, chances are you'll have to stand up for it.



/jarmo

I have been a visitor on this board for over 11 years now. I only registered a few years back, and don't post often. But there's something I really feel that I should mention:

We are all here because we love this band, either the old incarnation, or the new one. Let's not forget that. Neither version is better than the other.

There's so much bitching and fighting, especially in threads like these. It makes it less fun for regular visitors like me to drop in. Instead of reading about what's going on with a band I like (past members and current), it's reading flame wars between board members and owner(s). This board can be run whichever way Jarmo likes (it's his and I appreciate his effort), but I like to mention that it would be nice if the highlight of the message board would be conversations about the band, instead of its members.

This is not in any way criticism towards any of the board members...it's just a 'can't we all just get along?'.....

I don't think that is true, either old or new. I mean, I love both.... I don't think I'm the only one!  :peace:

Anyway, it's not a problem if you prefer one to the other. It's personal opinion.
But, I feel like I have to repeat this over and over, the problem arises when those who only like the old, or have a huge bias towards that era, come here to try to stir shit up because they know we are here because we support the current. And I'm not gonna shit like that go on. Sorry.

People who come here to post shit about the current band aren't welcome. It's pretty simple. That has nothing to do with what your favorite song, album or band member is. It has more to do with those people lacking respect for the band and/or this site. Simple as that.

If they have that respect, there's no problems.  :)



/jarmo

I fully understand that. And for what it's worth: I honestly like all versions....so there are people on here who really dig all albums. I just hope for new music from what I think is one of the best bands in the world....

It is not even about the old or new band so much as this forum basically exists so the moderator(s) can go around and correct Axl's mistakes, mishaps and weaknesses and neutralise, and in extreme cases censor, any people willing to discuss those mistakes. Under such a set of sycophantic circumstances, it is impossible to have a normal conversation that would exist in the real world whereby, you can 'dislike something' or 'disagree with something' and are free to do so and there is a sort of democratic acceptance that you are free to do so. That is why your 'flame wars' are being constantly created all the time, when you can literally not say ''I think Axl made a mistake here with such-and-such'' without an avalanche of self-righteous indignation and propaganda heading in your direction.

You are very wrong, this is a fan forum where actual supporters of GNR can come to get updates and chat about the band we like.

You are simply pissed off because your agenda of destructive criticism isn't allowed to take place here, all your idiocy and nonsense is outed for what it is.

Why don't you skip on over to an AC/DC forum, and plague them with your toxic presence? :rant:

The person who posts negative posts nine times out of ten is defending his right to whine. No surprise.

What he failed to mention is that if he feels that the band is doing so many "mistakes", why is he on a fan site? This kind of people claim to care about the band, but it's like they only care to whine about the band.
Also, how many times do we need to hear that this particular person doesn't like Las Vegas?  :rofl:



/jarmo

If your football team goes from top of the Premiership to the bottom of the Conference, in the space of so many years, you do not jump ship.

Great analogy, except the perception is in the eye of the beholder. That's what you want to believe.

You're so inclined not to like something that it's like a broken record. The team is still doing great. The only miserable person is you.  :)



/jarmo

Absolute garbage. If a sporting team is doing badly, everybody from the players to the management, chairmanship and ownership are lambasted by the fans; fans scrutinize managerial tactics and strategies, spending plans and players in order to find out 'what went wrong'. They usually all disagree about 'what is going wrong' but if a team is doing particularly miserable, there are usually not many, sporting equivalent of Jarmos, around. I doubt there are many fans of a team who are about to be relegated or booted out of a knock out competition going, ''It is out of my hands; let's dwell on the positive'' while attacking the waverers.

If a team is doing badly it is actually very vocal and heated - and interesting. Fans even turn up with placards saying things like, ''manager out'' and sing critical songs about players who are doing badly. It is, I do accept, all a far cry from your world. If I had your philosophy on life, I do not suppose I could ever read a paper or watch the news in the mornings, for fear that I see something 'negative'.

Ever heard the expression "You can't always get what you want"? :D

If your team gets relegated, it happens. No amount of your whining will change it!
It's just fucking boring to have to listen to you day in and day out.

Your analogies are getting weirder and weirder. What's this got to do with newspapers or the news? Nothing.
Just a poor attempt at ridicule.

While you were busy whining about he pointless touring in 2013 and 2014, many fans were enjoying the opportunity to see their favorite band.
So why don't you just go to any AC/DC fan site and discuss their exciting new setlist with three new songs in it? :)

The bottom line is, you contribute as much constructive criticism as a piece of rock. There's more positivity in a negatively charged particle than in you.

Edited to add: Nobody's stopping you from posting your opinions. You're free to post those whiny non-constructive opinions somewhere else. Nobody's trynig to silence you, just telling you that you're in a house and a company where your kind isn't the norm.



/jarmo

Not really true. Firstly, if you believe this it is you who would be in the minority in the stands or the terraces; literally no fan of a sports team acts like you. Most of them actually relish a good debate about their team and are happy to voice concerns publicly. Secondly, it is not true because criticism - even public criticism - can lead to changes in management.


Well taken your philosophy to its logical extreme, you surely cannot read a newspaper since there is contained in newspapers, negativity, criticism (of, say the government), as well as satire. Jarmo logic of, ''I cannot do anything so I only try to be positive, and I do not know anything anyway so why should I comment?'', literally can not be sustained whenever somebody reads an editorial. It collapses as it would in ordinary adult life in fact. It is not conducive to sensible and witty discourse in democratic societies.


Axl has not released an album since the Wright Brothers invented flight, and you are joking about a band who are touring behind an brand new album? I just do not understand how you have the nerve here! At least make fun of a band  who are similarly uninspired as Axl like an Elvis tribute act.


Speaking scientifically, you actually talk about 'positivity' and 'negativity' more than Rutherford.


It is funny you say that. Assuming I do not post, then the forum would become, more as you desire it - correct? More attuned to what you wish it? One less whiner - correct?

Well I have not posted in weeks and it has not exactly been all, sunshine, rainbows and daffodils around here. If anything, it has been more argumentative!!

And this applies to GN'R?
You think you get to decide how the band is run?  ???





Of course I can.

But I don't need to have somebody in my house telling me everything sucks when it's easy to just escort the person out and make sure he's not welcome back in.
You're not a newspaper. You're not the BBC Evening News. You're a whiny fan.




AC/DC. You know what you get. It's kinda like McDonalds. No surprises. ;)
Nothing wrong with that. They play the old songs everybody wants to hear and add three new songs in order to validate yet another tour..... Exciting! :)
That's why I don't get why you're here. You got all this excitement to go share with your fellow AC/DC fans instead of spending time on a band you don't like...

You're not allowed to criticize them? :o



You won't be missed. Sorry.
Your contributions are so minimal and I suspect they are more personal than anything.




/jarmo

No, well, yes in the sense that interactive fan involvement has occasionally produced results - products etc. This however would not happen with GN'R whose relationship with their fanbase is, lousy at best.


You think somebody actually runs this band? Haha - that is a good one!


Nobody can possibly live a life by 'escorting' people away from their life, who possess opinions different to theirs. I honestly do not know how you function in the real world, outside the internet.


How the heck are you supposed to know that? I do not believe I have ever cited my employment history here? Considering newspapers employ, uncountable numbers of people worldwide (there are millions of papers!!), and the BBC itself employs 20,000 people, it seems terribly presumptuous of you!


The paltry number of new songs in a DC setlist is a fair criticism, but then DC have a new album out which rather makes the argument redundant in light of the fact that Axl's discography can be written on a postage stamp. New album Jarmo? Remember that feeling? You go into the shops and buy 10-15 songs of your 'favourite band'? Oh, I forgot, you have never had that experience with New guns. Come back with this argument when Guns have a new album out. if they play more than three songs, I will concede you the argument.

Even CD was archaic in 2008.


Never presumed I would be. Thoroughly aware that I am unpopular here. But presumably, your vision of, Axl worship with Prozac and puppy dogs and smiley rainbows with cherubs, would never surface either since you have argued just as much when I was not posting, as when I have been present?

It's one thing if you're asked for your opinion, or feedback. You're just sharing all this without being asked!



Aww. Poor guy.
Can't answer a simple question. So much for wanting discussion and all that bullshit you spew.



I'll give you an example of a real world situation that happens. Or so I've heard!
Divorce, break ups, friendships ending. All these things happen when people don't care for the other person and/or their opinion.

And yes, I've you have a home, you can choose who is welcome in your home. That's why there's a door, or doors in the house!
Not everybody lives in places with an open door policy as you seem to Mr BBC Evening News.



The wonders of the internet. I just assume what I want. Just like you! Works both ways, great innit? :)
I don't need proof either. :D





It's not an argument. It just shows you that maybe you're too obsessed with this piece of the puzzle missing from your life... Poor guy, your life is so empty without a new GN'R album.
Would I want a new album? Sure. Doesn't mean I spend my days whining about it.  : ok:

Now, go listen to that new exciting AC/DC album and come back when GN'R has a new record out.  : ok:



/jarmo

I can't see a return to a classic era lineup, ever.  But I've been wrong before

PS:  If you added up the amount of time it takes to read all the arguments and then type out all these replies.... and the over/under was 2 years of time, I'd bet the over

This is fair enough in itself but you cannot live an entire life like this - unless of course, you live in a hippy commune or some closed off island oasis. You cannot shield yourself from all elements of worldliness.

Most people gather an array of opinions on things they like-dislike, agree-disagree on topics such as food, art, films, politics and, yes, rock music. They utilise those opinions with other people in conversations. Bringing the debate back on some degree of pertinence, do you think Stones fans like all those terrible '80s Stones releases? They slaughter them, usually in humorous terms. Do you think Ozzy fans defended the The Osbournes and the re-recording of his old albums? He got crucified. This is how normal rock fans act. Does not mean they are personally deficient in something or 'whiners' or spreaders of 'negativity'. They are simply reacting how normal rock fans act.


You always seem to equate objective internet criticism with some degree of, personal short falling, a depression or a mental unbalance. My life is not empty in the slightest without a new album. I actually have a lot of music I am listening to right now - not just AC/DC's latest.

I didn't say I do or that I'm trying.

All I said was that we can choose the company we keep. Unfortunately for you, unless you start changing your attitude, you're not the kind of company we want here.







#1: You're far from objective. Light years from it probably. Being able to whine about something does not equal being objective.
#2: When a majority of your complaints are about one issue, that sure makes me come to the conclusion that it's important to you.
#3: I'm glad you're able to enjoy other music, maybe you should do more of it to take your mind of that elusive GN'R album that you can't have at this exact moment. :)



/jarmo

Why do you have to keep acting like that, like a nursery school Gauleiter? I usually just ignore your periodic - throwing weight around while saying to the unpopular kid ''nah nah nah-nah-nah'' - thing but I will break my silence just this once by saying, it is terribly cringe-worthy stuff, emanating as it is from an adult and not a playground.


1# I do not 'whine'. It just so happens that you have caught me with the band at an all time nadir. 2# You never post yourself, if not to argue against your so called 'whiners'. It does raise an interesting question: who is better, the person who permanently whines, or the person who permanently whines against the whiner? As I said before, my absence did not produce your puppy dogs, cup cakes and rainbows scenario? You were arguing as vehemently as ever!


It is important in the sense that Guns N' Roses are a band I support and that Axl is a musician whose (future) music, I am interested in hearing. It is important in a way that, it would not be for someone uninterested in GN'R and Axl. But there is a clue there in what I wrote: Guns are just a 'band' and Axl, a 'musician'. None of that is particularly important in the greater scheme of things. CD2 will not cure cancer.


I could not listen to much more music than I already listen to. It is a great thing to have lots of music by artists who release music though.

Well, because I have to and I can.
It's that simple.

I've learned my lessons over time.I'll rather have people dislike me for this than run a breeding ground for hate and negativity. That's just me. :)







As I said, take a break!
If this particular time is so hard on you that you have to constantly share anything negative that you come up with, maybe a break away from it all will do us all some good?
Once again bringing up the "I don't like that you argue with me" point. Yes, I know, thins would be better if nobody confronted you about what you're doing. But that's not happening, so stop whining. :D  ;)






Great.  : ok:




/jarmo

I will just go back to ignoring you whenever you go through your toddler Gauleiter routine then. I want to be able to keep my lunch down after all.


But it isn't working very well, is it? The fact that this current argument began by a full blown supporter raising the point about the arguments here, tells you all you need to know about the present levels of 'negativity'. Of course, you actually do not have a problem with 'negativity', do you? I actually hasten to add that you enjoy a good argument - am I right? It is, negativity as directed at Axl Rose that you have a real problem with. You must propagandize Axl and rehabilitate him publicly, explaining away mistakes and mishaps to make him look perfect.

It's not working for you.
Doesn't mean it's true for everybody else. :)

Well considering this is a GN'R fan site, in my opinion, the negativity should be elsewhere. I know your definition of a fan is basically somebody who enjoys the music and likes to whine about shit they didn't get.
Fair enough. That's not necessarily why I started this site 18+ years ago.

In essence, if the bad outweighs the good in your opinion about the band, this isn't the site for you.... :)

Edited to add: if you have more questions about how and why this site is run the way it is, I'm more than happy to answer. Just send me a PM. : ok:


/jarmo

Ok let me turn that around a bit. I would rather have people around that will tell me when my shit stinks, when I'm being a jerk, when something Im working on is not up to par. It keeps you grounded and honest. Having YES people around is the most damaging thing an artist or anyone can have.

No.
You failed to mention that having people telling you everything always sucks is the most damaging thing.

Some people claim to support the band and want them to succeed. They got a funny way of showing it by putting down most of the things the band has done. Until a few years later, it was pretty good.
"I miss this, I miss that". Yeah, why not just enjoy what you have when you got it instead of reminiscing about it years later?

That's the point.



/jarmo

So, in essence, just accept what you're getting...because that's all you're going to get, and no amount of whining (objective or not) will change anything. 

But who seriously thinks otherwise?

If Axl went by what people wanted, or what the fans said dictated the direction he takes, he'd still be playing with Slash and Duff, would he not?

One of the more suspect talking points, that one.

Axl wanted to have Duff in the band always.

Duff left....   So I don't get your point here..

It does sound though that Duff is throwing out feelers though and would be happy to come back full time....  Just a feeling I am getting

What I am saying is that it totally ridiculous to suggest the "whiners" are doing so under any delusion they are going to affect change.

It's usually borne out of a thinned skin approach to any band criticism.  Some don't think such things should ever be uttered.  I don't agree with that, but if that's what you think, that's what you think.  If you feel being a good little fan means you only say something is awesome or, at worst, "its not for me to say", so be it.

But to go as far as to say anyone that ever questions anything is doing so under the premise they are demands that must be met, or else?  That's just not reality.

hahaha

Now you should know I don't think that

You are just looking for a reaction from jarmo with that....

Really don't see too many people around here with -5 Karma...   haha   I miss a few of them

Did you read the posts? He made an analogy to football fans wanting new managers, new players, results and so on. So I asked him if he thought his whining would have any effect on the band. No answer on that one.

I know the whining is more a personal outlet. Gotta stay objective!
Anyway, what's the endgame if it's not change these people want? What is it supposed to achieve? :)



/jarmo

Well it cannot be working for too many others either! You yourself only reply in order to defend perceived slights against Axl. This act always creates another lengthy argument. Then there is another poster who is on your side of the debate, who I will not name, who merely re-pastes the same ''you are a whiney toxic moron'' post. Nice and 'positive' it all is. Then you have the people in the middle who are lethargic and rarely post. Then the so called 'whiners'. That does not leave many others! Again, where are your puppy dogs and rainbows?

And before you start doing the whole heavy-handed ''my site, my rules'' straw man stuff, this is merely an observation.


No it isn't. This would not even apply to most of the bands I like. The Stones, another band I like, had a flawless career until the mid 70s. Since then there have been many turds, with a few gems glittering. Does not make me any less interested or any less a fan. 


I cannot even remember you asking me that but my answer to that would be, no. If I was in their shoes I would take it as water off a duck's back. They were all fans of bands once, Ron and Kiss, Axl and Queen. I am sure they had criticisms of their favourite bands also. As I said, this is how normal rock fans act.

No, that would apply to anyone who said that.  Its just not real world.

No one that ever questioned anything did so under the belief they should be running the band or should be consulted on all band moves.  Its a silly premise.

If you think your team reached big time on a draft pick and you say so, its not because you are implying you should have been in their draft room calling the shots for the team.  Or in the future, you, the fan at home, should be consulted on all team business.

That's absurd.  And its no different with a rock band.

I am not  lethargic at all......

And I am huge Stones fan as well.  I do not agree with your description of there discovery however.  The Stones in the early mid 90s where very, very, very good.  I saw them live twice.  Voodoo Lounge is a very good album.  The shows they put on where great.    Its what guns should of been after years of nothing, with the release of CD

Very much agreed.  And I love 'Voodoo Lounge' as an album.

It's working quite well thank you.
I'm glad you know what I only reply to. Shows how much you know. :)

The difference is, I'm constructive. You're not.






I hope you use all your free time to focus on those turds as you put it.
So you don't seem too much of a fan!




The question is, do they focus on it or do they focus on what they like.....
With you, it's easy to tell what you've chosen to spend your free time on. Whine.




Since you keep pointing out how wrong I am all the fucking time. Why don't you just answer and enlighten me?
What's your personal hopes regarding your negative feedback? What are you achieving or hoping to achieve with it? Please tell me because I'm interested in hearing it. :)

The same goes for mortis and anybody else who thinks it's their lives missions to go on a GN'R fan site to point out how much the band has done wrong. All the Festivus every day of the year people. Let me know. Thanks.

I'm giving you an opportunity to explain your side here. Let's see how interested you are.




/jarmo

I come here to talk to other GNR fans about the band we all like.

Who else even cares about any of this stuff?  Guns N' Roses is not exactly a hot button topic in 2015.  You have to seek out people who even give a damn.  And that is fellow fans.

We discuss what happens, or has happened.  There is no goal other than to have a conversation about band events.  That goes for when you want to say something good or bad.  You just talk about what happens and what all we think.  From there, there is give and take amongst similarly interested parties.

Frankly, from what I see, all the heat comes from trying to massage and correct the record, as some see it.  A lot of "how dare you" has derailed many a thread.

And what does it ever accomplish?  If you want to talk futility, I'd start there. 

Great. You want to have a discussion. I thought it was kinda obvious that you'd be interested in some kind of discussion if you go to a fan site's message board.
But anyway...

So, how come you're often ignoring questions and just keep repeating the same things over and over?
Are you aware that by repeating the same "negative feedback", people might have read it already and are aware of your opinion?

And what do you want to achieve with this discussion? That's the core.
Because it's apparent that you've got very little interest in learning anything new. You know what you know, and nothing else matters. So, if your interest is discussion, but you show little or no interest in taking in information, especially the kind that goes against your already formed opinion, what are you hoping to achieve besides the discussion itself. The discussion is the tool, what is the result?

I'd say many fans who go fan sites to have discussions with like minded people from all over the world. Share their excitement and so on without having to deal with all those people who don't like the band.
So imagine when people show up telling everybody they're huge fans but they just can't seem to focus on anything else besides pointing out all the things that are wrong.

Correct the record. Is that a problem? Why is it such an "issue" that a fan site would take the band's site instead of the rest of the world's? That part is a bit unclear to me.
I don't go to the home team's end if I support the away team.

Why does it seem to bother you that people who like the band would actually defend the band?




/jarmo

I think it becomes a problem if you (not you, specifically, but anyone) are so hypersensitive that your treat everything a straight up declaration of war and not just an observation.  And will bend over as backwards as can be to try and put a good spin on something that wasn't good, and in truth, is really a minor occurrence and not something to go to the mattresses over.

Quick example would be, say, the MTV VMAs in 2002.  Sort of a mess.  Even Axl himself later called it a debacle or something similar.  That's just how that night went.  Doesn't mean you like the band any less.  It just means that particular performance was not so hot.

So should the topic come up, I don't see a need to pretend it was good.  Not even on "a fan site".  And I'm not sure who we are fooling pretending it was good.  We all saw it and we all have ears.

It also possible to have an unexpressed thought.  Not everything you see or read that you disagree with needs to be a knock down drag out.  I see stuff I disagree with all the time.  I'm not going to rant and rave about every little thing though.  You go crazy that way.

I saw them live in the late '90s and like Voodoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon. But do you really think the Stones have ever quite re-captured that genius they possessed between, about 1968-72? In bits maybe (Some Girls, Tattoo You). Also I did not really mean, that particular period. I meant the 1980s period. Undercover and Dirty Work are two dreary sets of music. I have never seen too many Stones fans argue otherwise.

I would actually say The Stones are better 1989-present day, than they were, 1978-1987 (Tattoo You aside).

Same here.  And the live shows are most certainly better.

I would call you, corrective. You are the great corrector, fastidiously fixing Axl's image.


I will go further than that. In my record player, I constantly play Exile, Sticky Fingers and Beggars Banquet, and almost never, Emotional Rescue, Dirty Work and Undercover. And If anyone wants to discuss Mick Taylor era Stones, I am your man.


I do not choose to focus on anything in life in the way you describe. I do not have an individual voice in my head which goes, ''is this positive or negative - if the latter, ignore?''. I react to the good and bad. This applies to, just about everything. If something interesting enough to me is bad, then I will be amiable enough to discuss it.

Better than, seeing Jagger in Lycra and a headband?

I agreee

Hahahaha

You do seem more down on 'Undercover' than I though.  I think its the best offering from that decade.  Not a super high bar, obviously.

The Stones were abused by 1980s production. No band sounds worse with a drum machine than the Rolling Stones.

In my opinion, the Stones with Mick Taylor were the greatest rock band of all time.
When Taylor left, they became ordinary. Still great live, and Jagger?s voice still sounds good today, but to me, they died creatively when Taylor left.
Some Girls is Wood-era Stones at their peak, but not an essential Stones record.
Tattoo You had some bright spots, mainly because they were working with old Taylor era material. Plundered My Soul is great.
You win again cover on Some Girls's B-Sides is great too.

If we can't have Axl/Slash and Jagger/Taylor like they were meant to be, maybe Axl/Taylor and Jagger/Slash would work.

Not a 'Too Much Blood' guy, mortis?

I completely agree. Wood was basically a Richards-alike who was brought in to be just that and play interchangeable bar room honky tonk. Also, he got on with Richards. Taylor had what you might call an 'un-Stonesy' sound, a lot more free flowing, lyrical and jazzy, a bit Hendrixy in some ways, which added a different dimension to their sound. He elevated the band to their absolute pinnacle. He got belittled in the songwriting contributions by Mick also. Sway, Moonlight Mile and Winter are all his contributions. They are all bloody marvelous.

Keith has been joking for 40 years that he's still waiting on all the great stuff Mick Taylor was going to do once he got away from the Stones.

If that's the case, why is that a problem?
Are you saying you have a problem with differing opinions and points of view?  :o




Is it possible it was great to see a surprise at the VMAs that involved GN'R? Is it possible it was great to see GN'R on MTV?
Is it possible that knowing what you know, the performance wasn't as bad as some claim?

Like a "well, considering...... it was pretty fucking cool" kind of deal. Is that possible?


Also, is it possible to get an answer to the questions I asked instead of skipping them? If we're telling people we're here for the discussion, I'm assuming you wanna discuss things that aren't chit chat about the Stones. Yet when you're given a chance to discuss, you run away.

Why does this happen with you so often and time after time you tell us how you want discussions? I don't get it.



Not really.
I have a different point of view. That's all.






Like I said, maybe you should take a look at what you're doing. When the bad outweighs the good... Maybe take a break. What's the harm?



/jarmo

Slash's 5 Secrets To Success

Patience
Perseverance
Integrity
Passion
And a little bit of talent doesn't hurt

How is Slash as a boss: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XBUOopMF0Q

Not at all. 

But I am saying if you spend all the live long day picking fights with the same handful people over every single thing they say, you are going to find yourself in a lot of fights.  If it is the only way you can communicate with a certain person, its all the same sort of interaction you will ever have.

You also run of the risk of the becoming the Boy That Cried Outrage.  If everything is treated as a declaration of war and this grave insult to the band, the impact diminishes.  The taking issue with what is said loses its bite when you quite literally take issue with every single thing the person you don't like says.  Makes it easier to dismiss.

Pick your spots, I guess is how I'd put it.

I think it was cool that they were given the closing slot after being out of the public eye for almost a decade, and coming back with a line-up no one knew.  That part was cool.

However, the performance itself was pretty shabby.  Axl was not in good voice and the reaction afterwards had a definite air of "what the hell was that?" to it.

I don't see why one cannot hold both opinions.  Both views are accurate, I would say.

Anything in particular you feel didn't get its due?

Really, it takes three posts to reply to one? :D




Well I'm trying to get to the bottom of the whole discussion thing.
It's obvious people come here to discuss. That's kinda the whole idea behind a message board...




Yeah, but the difference is what you choose to focus on. What it wasn't, or what it was.




Well, personally speaking I only respond to things where I got something to add.
If it means telling somebody they have their story wrong, or telling somebody things aren't always as simple as they claim it is, then so be it.

You see, some actually enjoy learning new things. You present them with information and/or a different point of view and they see what you're saying.
Not everybody thinks they're always right and never can be wrong.




/jarmo

Easier to read.

Some of those marathon ransom note replies you do are tough on the eyes.  And hell to read on a phone, believe me.

Also better to address points specifically so nothing gets lost in the shuffle.

And I'd agree.

So what is your particular beef about the matter, or some aspect you felt I glossed over?

I'm trying to accommodate here.

No, I'm acknowledging both points as valid.

If I had to guess, I would wager you'd prefer I talked about how cool it was they got the slot...and then just not said anything about the quality of performance.

Why not just be honest? 

Duff McKagan on the reunion with Axl Rose in the chapter Let Go Of Resentments Volume 2.  Duff on the art of letting go...

Resentment is like yourself taking poison. And hoping the other person gets hurt from it. Resentment is killing you. It's eating you up.

@1:17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwxBCWVAViM

Wise words.

I asked what you're hoping to achieve with it all and you just said you want to discuss things. I pointed out that it was kinda obvious considering we're on a message board.
I explained it further.

So the question remains, why are you interested in discussions? What does partaking in them do to you? What do you, or hope to, get out of it all?
I'm honestly asking because I've seen you ignore plenty of discussions over the past months.



It's not less honest because you choose to remember the coolness of it. Even though the performance wasn't the best ever.
You don't always have to be Debbie Downer...

I don't even have to guess that some seem to have to always follow something nice with "but...." in order to appear "objective". Can't say something nice without a "but...".



/jarmo

Nothing, really. 

I don't think there is some big life revelation coming at the end of any of these threads or anything.  We are talking about a rock band on the internet.  We're not exactly solving the world's problems over here.

Since Axl is my favorite artist ever, I am interested to talk to fellow fans who also see him in the same way.  Just as I would want to talk University of Florida Gators football with fellow Gators fans.  Or talk about a certain TV show with fans of that show.  We all share a common interest, and only we are big enough fans to spend so much time thinking about those subjects in any sort of detail.

I personally would say they're just two sides of the same coin (performance).  I would describe the entire event using both of those perspectives.  Here is what I'd say about the 2002 VMAS....

I remember the scuttlebutt surrounding the event.... would Axl show or not?  If you recall, Pink blew it early in the show and mentioned Axl was there ("I just saw Buckethead!  Is he here with Axl?").  That only whetted my appetite (pardon the pun) to see what was going to happen.  Jimmy Fallon comes onstage and yammers something about how this band not only showed up, but is taking your requests.  (Huh?!)  GUNS N FUCKING ROSES!!!

The curtain went up.  Axl was dimly lit, but the intense look on his face was unmistakable.  His teeth gritted as he began the pre-Jungle scream.  And I have to say, as he opened his mouth to wail, it was the most exciting, hair-raising scream I had ever heard from Axl.  He really opened up his lungs and let it rip!

Then the song started.  Axl almost immediately started fucking with his ear monitor.  Then he started running around the stage.  He blew himself up badly and was out of breath for the remainder of an abbreviated three song medley.  The crowd seemed to be into it however, largely due to the surprise factor.

Was it exciting?  Hell yes, probably the most exciting thing that happened on that show in years (and possibly since).  Was that exciting appearance Axl's best performance?  Far from it.  But in the end, it served as an announcement that, indeed, Axl was back.  The staff was certainly buzzing about it on TV after the show, and Axl was briefly interviewed.

So for me, it wasn't one or the other.  It was all those things combined.

I could live with that -- until the 2007 VMAs where Axl appeared to present the Killers, then was briefly interviewed and asked about the 2002 performance.  Axl used the word "catastrophe".  He went on to explain that the *band* wasn't ready for such a performance and that's why it didn't go well.  I remember thinking then (as I do now) that Axl didn't do much to contradict that notorious stigma he carries about blaming other people and assuming no responsibility himself.

Everybody has an off night.  Being on TV may have frazzled Axl's nerves that night.  I can accept that.  What bothered me much more was Axl later heaping the responsibility on the band for the off performance, when truthfully, the band did just fine.

Nothing? Wow. Not even attention?  :o

And then the attempt at ridicule. Nobody said we were solving anything other than asking you what you're hoping to get out of the discussions. And your answer is "nothing".
If that really is the case, there must be something else that can give you something...




/jarmo