Here Today... Gone To Hell! | Message Board


Guns N Roses
of all the message boards on the internet, this is one...

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 15, 2017, 10:17:25 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
1234917 Posts in 42608 Topics by 10222 Members
Latest Member: Lerch
* Home Help Calendar Go to HTGTH Login Register
+  Here Today... Gone To Hell!
|-+  Guns N' Roses
| |-+  Dead Horse
| | |-+  Metallica's Kirk Hammett calls Guns N' Roses a 'nostalgia act'
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All Go Down Print
Author Topic: Metallica's Kirk Hammett calls Guns N' Roses a 'nostalgia act'  (Read 3252 times)
TheBaconman
Banned
Legend
*****

Karma: -1
Offline Offline

Posts: 2944


« Reply #40 on: December 07, 2016, 11:33:01 PM »

Well, as you can see they're hitting different cities the 2nd time around. Exposing the maximum amount of fans to see them live. I think you're in the minority traveling to multiple shows. They're not coming anywhere close to me next year, at least not yet. I'd have to make a pretty big effort to go see them.

There simply isn't much motivation for them to make a new album right now. They're making millions of dollars every night they play. Until that well runs dry, why would they stop?

There would be way more money to make by play on there own music and not covers. 

Release new music. Play new music sell new music 

Sales equals more money. 

Even 1 dollar is more than they get playing other people's music.   
That's debatable. Assuming there isn't an album ready to drop at a moment's notice, and I'm quite certain there isn't. It would take time to create new music and get it out to the public. We've seen that scenario play out before and it's not exactly swift. So that time used to create new music instead of touring would literally be millions of dollars lost. It's not like they're being charged to play 4 covers a night.

Tons of bands and this one in the past and this one with current members

Writes music on the road, while touring!!!!   

Why does everything need to cost millions in production and time.......   

Write a song, record a song, release a song!
We're not talking about tons of bands. We're talking about THIS band. When, in the history of this band have they written, recorded, and released a song in record time? Why would you expect that to change now? There is literally no point in them releasing new music right now in a financial sense. Money talks, and they love what it's saying right now.

I am talking about this band and members in this band and past members

I never said record time either, but how much time is really needed?

How long did AFD take to write and record?

How long did Lies take to write and record?

How long did the UYI's take to write and record?

How long did TSI take to record?

We are talking 5 albums in what 6 years?

I am sure they can find time to write and record a song right now
In March 1986 they signed an advance with Geffen. 9 months later they released Live Like A Suicide, so 4 songs. Then 8 months later they released AFD.  Then about a year and a half later they released Lies, so 4 more songs. Lies was an EP remember in between full length albums. Something to hold fans over in a sense. So there was really more of a 4 year gap between AFD and UYI I & II. Now granted, 2 albums made up for the time in between. But we're talking about a band who was just starting out and hungry for world domination. And TSI was full of covers, which you hate, so why even include that?

Axl and Slash didn't speak for 20 years. It's amazing they're civil enough to play on the same stage again. To think that they're going to reunite, go on this massive reunion tour, and come out with a new album is expecting too much as far as I'm concerned. Because again, the motivation for them to do so isn't very high. They're selling out stadiums without lifting a finger as far as promotion goes. That's where the money is in this business these days. Once people stop buying tickets in droves maybe they'll have to change their approach and get back to the basics. But that time is nowhere close right now. Just because you have seen them live already and you're ready for them to move onto phase 2, doesn't mean that's what needs to happen right now. They're busy catering to fans at all corners of the world and everywhere in between. It's what many in these hallowed halls have been wishing for for the better parts of two decades. Let's just take a deep breath and let them follow through on their plan and let fans in other areas enjoy what we already have witnessed.

So you answered if for me

This previous band had a great history of turning out music.    Into they split up

Then the spitting members had a even greater release method. 

Guns had a great history of releasing music until the classic line up broke up
Logged
faldor
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 7681


I'm Ron Burgundy?


WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 08, 2016, 09:10:43 AM »

I wouldn't say it was a GREAT history. I was nearly as big a fan of Pearl Jam back in the day and they'd put out an album every few years. Guns came out with AFD, which was a monster, then Lies a short time later. Then at that time it felt like 3 long years for the UYI's to come out. You like to compare them to other bands, so I'll do the same here. Their musical output was not great compared to Pearl Jam. They released their first 7 albums in 11 years, and none of them were covers albums.

Now in the end, I far prefer GNR's quality over PJ's quantity, but if you strictly want to look at numbers we can play that game.
Logged

If you're waiting...don't. Live your life. That's your responsibility not mine. If it were not to happen you won't have missed a thing. If in fact it does you might get something that works for you.
TheBaconman
Banned
Legend
*****

Karma: -1
Offline Offline

Posts: 2944


« Reply #42 on: December 08, 2016, 09:35:05 AM »

I wouldn't say it was a GREAT history. I was nearly as big a fan of Pearl Jam back in the day and they'd put out an album every few years. Guns came out with AFD, which was a monster, then Lies a short time later. Then at that time it felt like 3 long years for the UYI's to come out. You like to compare them to other bands, so I'll do the same here. Their musical output was not great compared to Pearl Jam. They released their first 7 albums in 11 years, and none of them were covers albums.

Now in the end, I far prefer GNR's quality over PJ's quantity, but if you strictly want to look at numbers we can play that game.

Yep

I would call it a great history of releasing music

and it was. 

From the late 80s to early 90s the market was full of guns n roses.

If you don't think it was, then that's fine.
Logged
D-GenerationX
Legend
*****

Karma: -4
Offline Offline

Posts: 9163


Just A Monkey In The Wrench


« Reply #43 on: December 11, 2016, 09:21:38 PM »

From mid 1988 until late 1992, GNR was the biggest rock band in the world.  Only plausible argument against, is U2.

Pearl Jam, and I love me some Pearl Jam, was never on that level.  Even in their white hot early prime, they didn't have either the crossover appeal, nor separation from their peers. 

Back then, even if you weren't a fan, everyone knew GNR and their music.  Couldn't say that about Pearl Jam, even in 1992-94.

Along similar lines, Pearl Jam had contemporaries like Nirvana, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains...among others.  Arguments could be made as to who was better.  GNR didn't have that.  They were clearly the best of their time.  The Michael Jordan of rock bands of that era.

Logged

I Can Finally Say I Saw Guns N' Roses Without Any Caveats, Qualifiers, Or Preambles.  And It Was GLORIOUS.  Best Concert Of My Life.
TheBaconman
Banned
Legend
*****

Karma: -1
Offline Offline

Posts: 2944


« Reply #44 on: December 12, 2016, 08:28:17 AM »

From mid 1988 until late 1992, GNR was the biggest rock band in the world.  Only plausible argument against, is U2.

Pearl Jam, and I love me some Pearl Jam, was never on that level.  Even in their white hot early prime, they didn't have either the crossover appeal, nor separation from their peers. 

Back then, even if you weren't a fan, everyone knew GNR and their music.  Couldn't say that about Pearl Jam, even in 1992-94.

Along similar lines, Pearl Jam had contemporaries like Nirvana, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains...among others.  Arguments could be made as to who was better.  GNR didn't have that.  They were clearly the best of their time.  The Michael Jordan of rock bands of that era.



She me people have to get out of the.  Well i remember them being big in the united states mind set.   

Sure pearl jam was all over MTV in the early 90s.   

However bands like guns n roses and u2 where all over the world.   

In a world comparison.  Pearl jam were a regional act.    Where as guns was a global act
Logged
Virolec
Rocker
***

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 197


« Reply #45 on: December 13, 2016, 10:08:51 PM »

I don't think their workrate/ output from their heyday is really relevant to what might happen in the present or future.  They were young then, full of piss and vinegar, and needed to release music to establish themselves - hell, even just to make their daily bread.  None of those things apply now.

As for Hammett, he's probably right, but it doesn't really bother me.  Very few bands of that vintage are primarily interesting for (or primarily interested in) what they can still do.  The only major band I can think of that really put their money where their mouth was when it came to promoting a new record was Iron Maiden with A Matter Of Life And Death - and even that was only one tour, almost a decade ago now.  They've done nostalgia tours as well.  Maybe Celtic Frost as well, but that was at a much lower commercial level.

Guns N' Roses don't really need to put out new music.  They don't need the money, they don't need to secure a place in the rock pantheon.  I'd like new music, sure, but it's not as if I don't have plenty of other things to listen to if they don't release anything.  And if they are going to be a nostalgia/ touring act, I'm sure most of us would rather have that with the current lineup than with the Axl + Some Dudes incarnations that preceded it.
Logged

Nargle them.  Fargle them.  Nargle-fargle them.
TheBaconman
Banned
Legend
*****

Karma: -1
Offline Offline

Posts: 2944


« Reply #46 on: December 13, 2016, 11:07:35 PM »

I don't think their workrate/ output from their heyday is really relevant to what might happen in the present or future.  They were young then, full of piss and vinegar, and needed to release music to establish themselves - hell, even just to make their daily bread.  None of those things apply now.

As for Hammett, he's probably right, but it doesn't really bother me.  Very few bands of that vintage are primarily interesting for (or primarily interested in) what they can still do.  The only major band I can think of that really put their money where their mouth was when it came to promoting a new record was Iron Maiden with A Matter Of Life And Death - and even that was only one tour, almost a decade ago now.  They've done nostalgia tours as well.  Maybe Celtic Frost as well, but that was at a much lower commercial level.

Guns N' Roses don't really need to put out new music.  They don't need the money, they don't need to secure a place in the rock pantheon.  I'd like new music, sure, but it's not as if I don't have plenty of other things to listen to if they don't release anything.  And if they are going to be a nostalgia/ touring act, I'm sure most of us would rather have that with the current lineup than with the Axl + Some Dudes incarnations that preceded it.

I would rather hav Axl and some dudes playing and releasing new music over the same old songs every night

The bands you just compared guns too have a huge back catalogue of music.  Guns doesn't.

The band blew up way too soon and doesn't have enough material to be a full time oldies act
Logged
C0ma
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2245



« Reply #47 on: December 15, 2016, 12:36:20 AM »

I don't think their workrate/ output from their heyday is really relevant to what might happen in the present or future.  They were young then, full of piss and vinegar, and needed to release music to establish themselves - hell, even just to make their daily bread.  None of those things apply now.

As for Hammett, he's probably right, but it doesn't really bother me.  Very few bands of that vintage are primarily interesting for (or primarily interested in) what they can still do.  The only major band I can think of that really put their money where their mouth was when it came to promoting a new record was Iron Maiden with A Matter Of Life And Death - and even that was only one tour, almost a decade ago now.  They've done nostalgia tours as well.  Maybe Celtic Frost as well, but that was at a much lower commercial level.

Guns N' Roses don't really need to put out new music.  They don't need the money, they don't need to secure a place in the rock pantheon.  I'd like new music, sure, but it's not as if I don't have plenty of other things to listen to if they don't release anything.  And if they are going to be a nostalgia/ touring act, I'm sure most of us would rather have that with the current lineup than with the Axl + Some Dudes incarnations that preceded it.

I would rather hav Axl and some dudes playing and releasing new music over the same old songs every night

The bands you just compared guns too have a huge back catalogue of music.  Guns doesn't.

The band blew up way too soon and doesn't have enough material to be a full time oldies act

That argument doesn't hold water... They play for 3 hours every night. Baconman might not like the set, but the vast majority of their ticket buyers is just fine with it. They have been touring on this same catalog since 2002 with fair success (and huge success for the last year due to the lineup change).

Would I love new music from Axl, Slash, and Duff... absolutely, but they would also do just fine without it.

As I am typing this though, Metallica is performing their latest song live on Kimmel... would be nice to see from 'our' band.
Logged
TheBaconman
Banned
Legend
*****

Karma: -1
Offline Offline

Posts: 2944


« Reply #48 on: December 15, 2016, 09:43:15 AM »

I don't think their workrate/ output from their heyday is really relevant to what might happen in the present or future.  They were young then, full of piss and vinegar, and needed to release music to establish themselves - hell, even just to make their daily bread.  None of those things apply now.

As for Hammett, he's probably right, but it doesn't really bother me.  Very few bands of that vintage are primarily interesting for (or primarily interested in) what they can still do.  The only major band I can think of that really put their money where their mouth was when it came to promoting a new record was Iron Maiden with A Matter Of Life And Death - and even that was only one tour, almost a decade ago now.  They've done nostalgia tours as well.  Maybe Celtic Frost as well, but that was at a much lower commercial level.

Guns N' Roses don't really need to put out new music.  They don't need the money, they don't need to secure a place in the rock pantheon.  I'd like new music, sure, but it's not as if I don't have plenty of other things to listen to if they don't release anything.  And if they are going to be a nostalgia/ touring act, I'm sure most of us would rather have that with the current lineup than with the Axl + Some Dudes incarnations that preceded it.

I would rather hav Axl and some dudes playing and releasing new music over the same old songs every night

The bands you just compared guns too have a huge back catalogue of music.  Guns doesn't.

The band blew up way too soon and doesn't have enough material to be a full time oldies act

That argument doesn't hold water... They play for 3 hours every night. Baconman might not like the set, but the vast majority of their ticket buyers is just fine with it. They have been touring on this same catalog since 2002 with fair success (and huge success for the last year due to the lineup change).

Would I love new music from Axl, Slash, and Duff... absolutely, but they would also do just fine without it.

As I am typing this though, Metallica is performing their latest song live on Kimmel... would be nice to see from 'our' band.

They havnt played 3 hrs once this tour.  But I am not saying that.  I am think guns since 2002 has put on a good concert.  Crap some shows in the mid 2000s went over 3hrs. 

But its 80% of the same music now that they have been playing live

If you take out the 7 cover songs they play every night with jams it really cuts into the playing time

crap the band has released 80 songs.  20 of them are covers.  That is not a lot of original material to draw from to become a full time touring band

Its cool that you are not bothered by it

Cool that you can hear SCOM over and over and over again.   Myself personally I cant.   I want something new
Logged
fangbutt
Opening Act
*

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


« Reply #49 on: November 20, 2017, 09:41:08 PM »

Like Metallica aren't. Okay Kirk, keep pretending anyone wants to hear your new songs.
Logged
COMAMOTIVE
Legend
*****

Karma: -3
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1673


At least there's a reaction


« Reply #50 on: November 28, 2017, 08:55:30 AM »

You can't honestly say he is wrong

It's a great tour and to think they have managed to climb  back to the top just by reuniting and touring flawlessly...what would happen if they actually
recorded new music

Would be the biggest band on the planet again and retake their rightful path as the next Zeppelin / Stones of planet Earth
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.248 seconds with 18 queries.