GNR albums and Warrant

[D-GenerationX]

And I'm talking any subject.  Politics, religion, sports, artists.  You check your credibility at the door if you can't ever bring yourself to say some stuff is wrong.

You can always find things to complain about if that's your goal.

Much like you can make excuses for everything or avoid having to say anything critical if that is your goal.  Two way street there, no?

You have your reasons to approach things the way you do.  I do not have those same motivations, so I don't have to walk on eggshells in the same fashion.

[D-GenerationX]

IMO stands for IN MY OPINION and gave MY opinion as to why I think it's ludicrous to believe that the record label (or whomever) is an innocent bystander or victim in the business of GNR.  Yet you fail to give any reasoning as to why you believe the label (or whomever) is at Axl's mercy.

I tend to not believe Axl has tried repeatedly from several different angles to get material out.  Only to be thwarted by the label as their twirl their moustaches and laugh manically as they tell him no.

What sense does that make? 

They spend a bloody fortune getting all these songs recorded.  We can quibble on what return on their investment they get by releasing them, but logic would dictate whatever they get has to be better than having it all sit around unheard.

I truly hope I'm the one who is wrong and that you are totally correct that Axl does have all that control and power in every aspect and decision concerning what does or does not happen with GNR.

I think he is the driving force behind anything getting done.  Nothing will happen without him, for instance.

Honestly, I don't believe he's even talked to the label about any of this in years.  And after some of his shenanigans with the last release, I doubt they are real motivated to reach out to him either.

But I do not believe that if Axl decided to reopen conversations with them, they would be opposed to doing so.  This is about business, not being best friends.  Without that conversation, nothing ever moves forward.

But going by his last interview, he seems willing to have that conversation, which is great news for all of us.

[mortismurphy]

I cannot imagine living my life being completely uncritical about, anything really. Do the supporters (Jarmo etc) here - do you apply your same logic to  other topics of discussion in your life? Israel-Palestine? ''I do not know anything and prefer to be positive''. But you must have an opinion? Is Israel justified because of Hamas? ''No, I am positive about everything and you are creating a shit storm by even mentioning this controversial subject''. But it is not about being positive (or negative for that matter) - it is about having an opinion? ''No, can't do''. Or even trivial discussions. Do you prefer pasta or salad with your burger? ''No, I will not be drawn into negativity created by naysayers like you''. But, which one do you prefer? ''You must be emotionally damaged to bring up a potentially negative topic such as, whether I prefer Pasta or Salad?'' Alright then, here is, just the burger.

[GypsySoul]

I tend to not believe Axl has tried repeatedly from several different angles to get material out.  Only to be thwarted by the label as their twirl their moustaches and laugh manically as they tell him no.

Don't we already know, albeit from Axl's mouth, that it was the label (or whomever) that repeatedly thwarted the release of material by attempting to strong arm him into agreeing to do things that he is fundamentally opposed to?   

I think he is the driving force behind anything getting done.  Nothing will happen without him, for instance.

I would agree that Axl should be the driving force behind anything getting done.
Are you saying this SHOULDN'T be the case?

Honestly, I don't believe he's even talked to the label about any of this in years.  And after some of his shenanigans with the last release, I doubt they are real motivated to reach out to him either.

But I do not believe that if Axl decided to reopen conversations with them, they would be opposed to doing so.  This is about business, not being best friends.  Without that conversation, nothing ever moves forward.

I don't understand what would make you believe that there has not been any conversation in years between Axl and the label considering there are tons of things contractually at stake.  If that weren't the case, either side would/could have walked away a long, long time ago, right?

It's my opinion that there were plenty of 'shenanigans' on both sides before and after the last release.  I think the chicken n' egg scenario can be equally argued here.
 

[D-GenerationX]

I cannot imagine living my life being completely uncritical about, anything really. Do the supporters (Jarmo etc) here - do you apply your same logic to  other topics of discussion in your life? Israel-Palestine? ''I do not know anything and prefer to be positive''. But you must have an opinion? Is Israel justified because of Hamas? ''No, I am positive about everything and you are creating a shit storm by even mentioning this controversial subject''. But it is not about being positive (or negative for that matter) - it is about having an opinion? ''No, can't do''. Or even trivial discussions. Do you prefer pasta or salad with your burger? ''No, I will not be drawn into negativity created by naysayers like you''. But, which one do you prefer? ''You must be emotionally damaged to bring up a potentially negative topic such as, whether I prefer Pasta or Salad?'' Alright then, here is, just the burger.

Hahahaha.

I wonder this too, sometimes.

[D-GenerationX]

Don't we already know, albeit from Axl's mouth, that it was the label (or whomever) that repeatedly thwarted the release of material by attempting to strong arm him into agreeing to do things that he is fundamentally opposed to?

Eh...that's his spin.  Like you said, that's Axl talking.

I'd certainly need some of that picture colored in before I could say how valid his objections are.  Lot of mountains out of molehills with our man.   

I don't understand what would make you believe that there has not been any conversation in years between Axl and the label considering there are tons of things contractually at stake.  If that weren't the case, either side would/could have walked away a long, long time ago, right?

I believe that because its been 5 years.

The hard part of an album is writing and recording it.  That's done and been done.

If there is truly a dialogue going on between both parties, what the holy hell could be taking this long?  I think its more likely communication has not been all that frequent.

It's my opinion that there were plenty of 'shenanigans' on both sides before and after the last release.  I think the chicken n' egg scenario can be equally argued here.

Here, we agree.  Both have marks in their "con" column :

Label con : Messing up the booklet and not getting back to the GNR people to sign off on it.  That's inexcusable.

Axl con : Going MIA for the two months before its release, doing no real promotion

The problem, as you so rightly put it, is the chicken and the egg.  Axl supposedly took off because he was pissed at them.  Which leads to them saying "you know what, fuck him."

But they can also wonder how a guy that worked so hard and so long on this would be passive about its production.  And then to be so quick to storm off in a huff.    Even if he had what he felt were valid reasons, that was not the way to handle it.

My fear, at least it has been my fear until I read that interview, was that Axl is in one of those standoffish situations where he felt he is owed this big apology to even get started.  And they can call him when they are ready to do that.

But, #1, they aren't going to do that.  #2, that should not be imperative to get things moving.  Both sides made mistakes, so let's get it right this time. 

And if you say why should Axl have to be the bigger man, so to speak, the reason is because its his career.  They go on just fine if he never calls them.  He goes nowhere until they start getting back to work together.

[GypsySoul]

My fear, at least it has been my fear until I read that interview, was that Axl is in one of those standoffish situations where he felt he is owed this big apology to even get started.  And they can call him when they are ready to do that.

But, #1, they aren't going to do that.  #2, that should not be imperative to get things moving.  Both sides made mistakes, so let's get it right this time. 

And if you say why should Axl have to be the bigger man, so to speak, the reason is because its his career.  They go on just fine if he never calls them.  He goes nowhere until they start getting back to work together.

 
Going by your logic that interview implies Axl IS the bigger man and did make the first move to get the ball rolling by saying he's looking in to releasing new material. 

[D-GenerationX]

My fear, at least it has been my fear until I read that interview, was that Axl is in one of those standoffish situations where he felt he is owed this big apology to even get started.  And they can call him when they are ready to do that.

But, #1, they aren't going to do that.  #2, that should not be imperative to get things moving.  Both sides made mistakes, so let's get it right this time. 

And if you say why should Axl have to be the bigger man, so to speak, the reason is because its his career.  They go on just fine if he never calls them.  He goes nowhere until they start getting back to work together.

 
Going by your logic that interview implies Axl IS the bigger man and did make the first move to get the ball rolling by saying he's looking in to releasing new material. 

Oh, agreed.  That's excellent news.

[GeorgeSteele]

No, I don?t expect the current lineup to get back to the AFD or UYI popularity?it?s impossible.  What I hope is that they can achieve a level of independence and be looked at without the shadow of the past.  To do that, or at least to try and do that, IMO, they need to release new music.  There?s been some progress mentioned in that regard and I hope it turns out to be true.

Also, IMO, everyone?s side projects and other endeavors (it seems like everyone but Axl has one) distracts from being looked at as a band, and creates the impression that being in GnR is more of a means to help facilitate other passions.
 
I would love it if each member could answer the question, ?what do you do?? with:  ?I?m in Gun and fucking Roses.  Period.  End of Story.? 

I don't think that's realistic either.  That shadow will always be there.  Which is fine with me. 

As far as how invested the band members are... all I know is that they put on an amazing show and the one album that has been released in this era was great, due in no small part to the contributions from other band members.  So long as that continues, I'm not concerned about their side projects or whether they're towing the company line. 

[jarmo]

And I'm talking any subject.  Politics, religion, sports, artists.  You check your credibility at the door if you can't ever bring yourself to say some stuff is wrong.

You can always find things to complain about if that's your goal.

Much like you can make excuses for everything or avoid having to say anything critical if that is your goal.  Two way street there, no?

You have your reasons to approach things the way you do.  I do not have those same motivations, so I don't have to walk on eggshells in the same fashion.

The simple answer in this case is: I make my mind and base my opinion on GN'R related things based on what I know. You make up your mind based on what you know.

 


/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

The simple answer in this case is: I make my mind and base my opinion on GN'R related things based on what I know. You make up your mind based on what you know.

True.

Of course, if you have something to share with the rest off the class that might disprove something I suggest, we'll take that at any time.  You are certainly closer to the situation than any of us will ever be.

But absent that sort of specific correction, you chiding me (or anyone else) about us having it wrong while offering nothing to back it up, even with your increased access, is not going to carry any more weight than some other random guy.

"You are wrong because you are just wrong and I can't go into it" is a rather toothless statement.

[jarmo]

Whatever you say.

For anybody else reading this, it's kinda obvious what the point I made is. Some might have experiences that give them a different perspective on things.

For example, for some fans Guns N' Roses isn't even a human thing. It's a name on a screen or on a poster on their walls....


/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Whatever you say.

For anybody else reading this, it's kinda obvious what the point I made is. Some might have experiences that give them a different perspective on things.

For example, for some fans Guns N' Roses isn't even a human thing. It's a name on a screen or on a poster on their walls....

Oh, I'm sure the fact you actually know these people gives you a different perspective than the rest of us.  How could it not?

 

[EmilyGNR]

And I'm talking any subject.  Politics, religion, sports, artists.  You check your credibility at the door if you can't ever bring yourself to say some stuff is wrong.

You can always find things to complain about if that's your goal.

Much like you can make excuses for everything or avoid having to say anything critical if that is your goal.  Two way street there, no?

You have your reasons to approach things the way you do.  I do not have those same motivations, so I don't have to walk on eggshells in the same fashion.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
Since you are not informed and not only attempt to discuss but also habitually belittle people and situations you know very limited info about I think we can all see who gets to wear the "Ignorant" badge of dishonor here, without research, without background, without understanding, it?s nothing. It?s just bibble-babble. It?s like a fart in a wind tunnel and almost as pleasant to bystanders.

[EmilyGNR]

My fear, at least it has been my fear until I read that interview, was that Axl is in one of those standoffish situations where he felt he is owed this big apology to even get started.  And they can call him when they are ready to do that.

But, #1, they aren't going to do that.  #2, that should not be imperative to get things moving.  Both sides made mistakes, so let's get it right this time. 

And if you say why should Axl have to be the bigger man, so to speak, the reason is because its his career.  They go on just fine if he never calls them.  He goes nowhere until they start getting back to work together.

 
Going by your logic that interview implies Axl IS the bigger man and did make the first move to get the ball rolling by saying he's looking in to releasing new material. 

I'm very excited to see how things unfold going forward

[EmilyGNR]

I cannot imagine living my life being completely uncritical about, anything really. Do the supporters (Jarmo etc) here - do you apply your same logic to  other topics of discussion in your life? Israel-Palestine? ''I do not know anything and prefer to be positive''. But you must have an opinion? Is Israel justified because of Hamas? ''No, I am positive about everything and you are creating a shit storm by even mentioning this controversial subject''. But it is not about being positive (or negative for that matter) - it is about having an opinion? ''No, can't do''. Or even trivial discussions. Do you prefer pasta or salad with your burger? ''No, I will not be drawn into negativity created by naysayers like you''. But, which one do you prefer? ''You must be emotionally damaged to bring up a potentially negative topic such as, whether I prefer Pasta or Salad?'' Alright then, here is, just the burger.

You are honestly comparing viewpoints on GNR to the israel-hamas conflict? 

[GypsySoul]

I cannot imagine living my life being completely uncritical about, anything really. Do the supporters (Jarmo etc) here - do you apply your same logic to  other topics of discussion in your life? Israel-Palestine? ''I do not know anything and prefer to be positive''. But you must have an opinion? Is Israel justified because of Hamas? ''No, I am positive about everything and you are creating a shit storm by even mentioning this controversial subject''. But it is not about being positive (or negative for that matter) - it is about having an opinion? ''No, can't do''. Or even trivial discussions. Do you prefer pasta or salad with your burger? ''No, I will not be drawn into negativity created by naysayers like you''. But, which one do you prefer? ''You must be emotionally damaged to bring up a potentially negative topic such as, whether I prefer Pasta or Salad?'' Alright then, here is, just the burger.

You are honestly comparing viewpoints on GNR to the israel-hamas conflict? 

Never mind that comparison.  @mortismurphy's mindset is apparently so negative that he couldn't even imagine the positive scenario of having both pasta AND salad with that burger!!! 

Ask yourself this: if you are faced with two positive - but, slightly different - reviews of an album (let's say, Chinese Democracy), one by a critical fan, and one by a blind supporter, whose review would you be more impressed with? A blind supporter is naturally going to love everything and agree with everything - is this the sort of review people would be impressed with, here?

You indicated that BOTH reviews were positive so depending on what the actual difference of opinion was about would be the only way to determine which review one would be more impressed with.

Now change that up to this and see the difference:

Ask yourself this: if you are faced with two positive - but, slightly different - reviews of a GNR concert,  one by a 'critical' fan watching on youtube, and one by a fan that attended the show, whose review would you be more impressed with?

This is NOT to say that the fan watching on youtube shouldn't have any opinion whatsoever.  It's to point out how some "critical" fans tend to dismiss the positive opinions of those who, IMO, have a better perspective.

[mortismurphy]

You are honestly comparing viewpoints on GNR to the israel-hamas conflict? 

Obviously I was being facetious.

Never mind that comparison.  @mortismurphy's mindset is apparently so negative that he couldn't even imagine the positive scenario of having both pasta AND salad with that burger!!! 

But with Guns N' Roses we are getting neither. We are not even getting a bun to put the burger in!

You indicated that BOTH reviews were positive so depending on what the actual difference of opinion was about would be the only way to determine which review one would be more impressed with.

Now change that up to this and see the difference:

Ask yourself this: if you are faced with two positive - but, slightly different - reviews of a GNR concert,  one by a 'critical' fan watching on youtube, and one by a fan that attended the show, whose review would you be more impressed with?

This is NOT to say that the fan watching on youtube shouldn't have any opinion whatsoever.  It's to point out how some "critical" fans tend to dismiss the positive opinions of those who, IMO, have a better perspective.

Let's say, one review is by somebody who agrees with Nugnr 100% and likes everything Nugnr do, how they operate, how they advertise themselves - everything. The other review is by somebody who, sometimes criticises Nugnr, sometimes praises them, sometimes in the middle - someone a bit more objective. Both reviews are positive but both, different in tone. Which is the better review?

About the youtube thing, I take the viewpoint that both have their limitations as an objective witness. A spectator has the whole sensory experience of having witnessed the thing live, yet is sometimes swayed by subjectivity. Sometimes he is swayed by his own fandom (perhaps he has waited years for this show?), or because he has paid a load of money so must naturally walk away from an 'enjoyable show' (I have done this myself, convinced myself that the show was better than it actually was). Perhaps also he is carried away with the general exuberance and momentum of a live gig, the crowd, the volume and other considerations. Youtube has the ability to replay the thing and instantly cross reference with other performances, yet, has obvious technical limitations. In an open contest between a Youtube clip and a spectator, it would depend on the objectivity of the spectator; assuming I did not know the person, I would probably give the benefit of doubt to the spectator. I would certainly trust a spectator who was more, a 'general rock fan' (for lack of a better term) than a particular fan of that band (no offence but, that would rule out people who post on that band's forums).

In some ways, the best way to see a live gig is on television. Whether you are attending in person, or watching a youtube clips, you are basically tied to one perspective and one sound zone. And as anyone knows who has moved around at a gig, your positioning can change things a lot. Multi-camera set ups allow you to see the action from different perspectives and bring you closer to the action than ever before. Sound deficiencies, such as feedback and PA leakage, can be eradicated by a remix. Obviously I am being rather, objective and matter of the fact here. Nothing beats seeing a band in person - but there is a level of truth in that if you want to sit back and analyse things in a detached manner. Just a random thought.

[GypsySoul]

Let's say, one review is by somebody who agrees with Nugnr 100% and likes everything Nugnr do, how they operate, how they advertise themselves - everything. The other review is by somebody who, sometimes criticises Nugnr, sometimes praises them, sometimes in the middle - someone a bit more objective. Both reviews are positive but both, different in tone. Which is the better review?

Again it depends on how the review was written.

Example:
Review by Always 100% Positive Fan:  Wow!  That Chinese Democracy album is so awesome!!!  My FAV song on the album is Sorry.  I especially like the chord it's sung in along with the different inflections in Axl's voice!!!

Review by Sometimes Critical Fan:  Wow!  That Chinese Democracy album is so awesome!!!  My FAV song on the album is Sorry.  I especially like how Axl sings the line 'But I don't want to do it' in his Bela Legosi Dracula voice!!!


Even though both are saying the same thing, most people would be more impressed with the first review.

About the youtube thing, I take the viewpoint that both have their limitations as an objective witness. A spectator has the whole sensory experience of having witnessed the thing live, yet is sometimes swayed by subjectivity. Sometimes he is swayed by his own fandom (perhaps he has waited years for this show?), or because he has paid a load of money so must naturally walk away from an 'enjoyable show' (I have done this myself, convinced myself that the show was better than it actually was). Perhaps also he is carried away with the general exuberance and momentum of a live gig, the crowd, the volume and other considerations. Youtube has the ability to replay the thing and instantly cross reference with other performances, yet, has obvious technical limitations. In an open contest between a Youtube clip and a spectator, it would depend on the objectivity of the spectator; assuming I did not know the person, I would probably give the benefit of doubt to the spectator. I would certainly trust a spectator who was more, a 'general rock fan' (for lack of a better term) than a particular fan of that band (no offence but, that would rule out people who post on that band's forums).

In some ways, the best way to see a live gig is on television. Whether you are attending in person, or watching a youtube clips, you are basically tied to one perspective and one sound zone. And as anyone knows who has moved around at a gig, your positioning can change things a lot. Multi-camera set ups allow you to see the action from different perspectives and bring you closer to the action than ever before. Sound deficiencies, such as feedback and PA leakage, can be eradicated by a remix. Obviously I am being rather, objective and matter of the fact here. Nothing beats seeing a band in person - but there is a level of truth in that if you want to sit back and analyse things in a detached manner. Just a random thought.

The question was about whose review would one give more credence.  We're talking about LIVE performances where, as you point out, there are so many variables.  IMO, the person who actually attended the show would have a more credible opinion over the fan watching on youtube or tv.

IMO, watching a live gig on tv (as opposed to watching it in person) is similar to watching it on youtube.  You're at the mercy of the filmer/director and where they're picking the sound up from i.e., the same speakers as the audience or soundboard, etc.  Again, a fan in attendance's perspective would be the one most would find more credible.

[mortismurphy]

Let's say the reviews are different then. Reviewer One gives the band an excellent review, an A+. Reviewer One's previous 4 reviews also consisted of, A+, A+, A+, A+. Reviewer Two givers the band, a mediocre C. Two's previous four reviews consisted of, B, A+, D, A. There is simply no way, One can be considered a credible reviewer as he obviously has been compromised somehow, whether that be through fandom, hero worship, personal access (to the band). Two however seems to be merely reacting on a, show by show basis. Two therefore must be the more reliable reviewer. Two also, in my opinion, is the superior fan.

I do not totally disagree with you about the live spectator being the more credible witness. I would tend to give them the benefit of the doubt myself. I merely think that, for although videos of various descriptions may have their limitations, nobody could call them biased. The same, can occasionally be applied to fans. The thing is, you have to judge the medium just as much as the item the medium contains. What if you capture an 'excellent' GN'R performance, and a 'terrible' GN'R performance, on the exact same phone from, roughly, the same location in a crowd. If the 'terrible' show is 'untrustworthy' because it was recorded on a phone, then can we trust the apparent 'excellence' of the first show, also recorded on a phone? Why do the years, 2006-07, or even 2010, just happen to throw forth so many excellent phone recorded Youtube clips (of Guns N' Roses) whereas, the years 2012-14 have not been, so fortunate (even considering the Vegas DVD)? Has phone technology somehow deteriorated, since 2006?