Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Over the last few months few I have been inundated with people asking me about the rumored Guns n? Roses reunion. It?s been incredible to see the massive amount of rumors (many being reported and taken as fact) out there. I get that this is something many would like to see, but to watch the incredible amount of misinformation is mind boggling. People are literally making shit up, and there are many just waiting to buy it. I had someone on Twitter ask me about a ?second leg? of the tour, when of course there is no FIRST LEG!. A UK website said the tour if off until 2017 recently so Axl can do a proper farewell with the current band. What current band?? He?s down two guitarists! So what, hire two new guys and do a farewell essentially for Tommy Stinson? It?s insane! I get TONS of questions about this because as many know I have a friendship, or know, almost all the players involved potentially. But I have refused to get into the rumor game and promote baseless sources. Just the other day I asked Dana to not post stories about this unless it is CREDITED TO AN OFFICIAL SOURCE. What a concept huh? Actually wait for REAL information!? So what?s going on since there is still no real news? Here is my two cents:

I have said for years I think one day some sort of reunion will happen. Why? Because it?s too big not to, the members are still relatively young, and the money is way too attractive to ignore. The main reason I would like to see it is because as a lifelong promoter of rock and metal it would give our genre a shot in the arm. I do believe and have been told by very reliable sources over the last year or so that indeed there have been talks. But ?talks? can go several ways as we all know and have seen. Promoters can and sometimes do make offers for bands and tours not currently formed. Hoping the amount of money makes the bands reunite. Zeppelin, Floyd, etc. I have personally been asked to make offers to the guys in Skid Row to reunite by promoters half a dozen times over the years. Offers happen all the time, putting the pieces in place to make tours happen, not so much. Ego, politics, control, money, merch, control of the name and brand, all play a part. Factor in that when a band splits all the members now have their own managers and agents who must then negotiate. So I think 100% there are talks and hopes of doing something with GnR. How close they are or if they actually happen is anyone?s guess. It could be tomorrow, it could be in five years, it could be never. Unless you are on the very inside with lawyers, agents and managers you just don?t know. And with how volatile this stuff can be it could have been set and pulled off the table five times already for all we know.

Here?s where the fans can?t be blamed for speculation; there has been no announcement from any source that this ISN?T happening! To end this all that would need to happen is Slash, Duff, or Axl put out a statement saying this is not happening and they are staying on their current paths. They would have to be on another planet to not know it?s being talked about everywhere. But if Axl came out tomorrow and said ?I have a new lineup, here are my new guys replacing Bumble and DJ, here?s what we are doing? , it would all be over. A statement from anyone killing it will stop all the madness. But since that has not happened you can?t blame any fan who wants this for dreaming. And it likely means there are still talks ongoing. So the speculation and rumors will continue until we get an announcement saying one thing or the other. All I will say is be careful what you believe and consider where it?s coming from. The ?media? world is so saturated with irresponsible people who?s affiliation might be a twitter feed or web page that it can make your head spin. And it amazes me how some people in my industry of radio put some of this on the air as fact! Everyone is looking to be the first, or get the most clicks for their page. Let?s all chill and discuss and dissect when there is REAL information one way or the other. I actually had people calling my radio show the other day upset about who?s not being included in a reunion that hasn?t even been announced at all in any way, shape or form! If/when there is REAL news we will get into then. And as I said, for all I know that can be tomorrow, next week, or never. But until then all we need is a little patience?

PS: I?ve also been asked by many, "hey, you know these guys, ask them what?s up". I?m not going to put these guys in that position. They know me, if they want to tell me anything on or off the record they will. They aren?t dumb and neither am I. The way to handle stuff like this properly and professionally to maintain relationships is to make requests at times like these through proper channels for interviews. I of course have done that and my doors are wide open to any and all to discuss. To date Steven Adler and Gilby Clarke were the only ones to come forward and discuss this on my radio show from LA a couple months ago and give their take. I truly hope when the time is right and there is something to announce either way I can share it with you through the band members when they want to talk. But I?m not going to put these guys who I have been friends with and worked with often over the years in an awkward position until they are ready to discuss. It would serve no purpose and obviously nobody is going to say anything on the record with anyone until they want to and know what?s up.

If only all media outlets took that approach.

He is one of very few people who has actually gotten to interview with Axl you think he would do anything to harm his relationships with any of those guys hell no I wouldn't.

So true.

Let's make you him.  How many times have people come up to him in the past few weeks, and started out with "Look, I know you can't *really* say anything, but you know you can trust me..."

Like, 100 times?  200?

Wasn't AXL the one who reached out to Eddie when they did that last interview what down in florida after a concert with DJ I believe. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

D-Gen, maybe you should listen to him too? Speculating on what is going to happen is just silly at this point....beyond the pale....just let it go for awhile.

Eddie Trunk is a Radio Personality whos area of expertise is in hard rock and heavy metal and he is well connected in the industry lots of friends and people know he has relationships with all the guys from GNR past and present so he is going to get inundated with these questions especially with all the rumors that have been out their. He wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't express his feelings

After reading this now I really feel for Axl. The por guy worked his ass off against all odds to make a new band and CD. And at the end of the day all he got was a bunch of guys asking Eddie Trunk about the second leg of a reunion tour

 :rofl:

I need a favor, all those who want CD II please ask Trunk if he has news about it. Just to balance things up a little bit. Please do it for Axl, just to cheer him up

  : ok:

Yeah, Eddie is basically describing my point of view on the whole thing.


I do get the argument from some that Axl might be staying silent until he has an alternative ready to go before going public about these reunion rumors being bullshit. If that's the case. But on the other hand you have (as Eddie says) Duff and Slash playing the silent game as well... Quite peculiar.

Eddie tells us to wait for real news and writes a news story based on no news. :hihi:


Yeah, it's common sense what he says and that's why many have already figured it out.



/jarmo

After reading this now I really feel for Axl. The por guy worked his ass off against all odds to make a new band and CD. And at the end of the day all he got was a bunch of guys asking Eddie Trunk about the second leg of a reunion tour

I do get the argument from some that Axl might be staying silent until he has an alternative ready to go before going public about these reunion rumors being bullshit. If that's the case. But on the other hand you have (as Eddie says) Duff and Slash playing the silent game as well... Quite peculiar.

Sake of argument, let's say he really has been hard at work on the new album and putting together a new line-up.

Would Slash and Duff be receptive to agreeing to stay quiet until he's ready to roll?  I don't know.  What's really in that for them?

Sake of argument, let's say he really has been hard at work on the new album and putting together a new line-up.

Would Slash and Duff be receptive to agreeing to stay quiet until he's ready to roll?  I don't know.  What's really in that for them?

And as we've said many times, after all this rumor and conjecture, Axl re-emerging with yet another new line-up of replacement guys might not land.

Sake of argument, let's say he really has been hard at work on the new album and putting together a new line-up.

Would Slash and Duff be receptive to agreeing to stay quiet until he's ready to roll?  I don't know.  What's really in that for them?

And as we've said many times, after all this rumor and conjecture, Axl re-emerging with yet another new line-up of replacement guys might not land.

It's obvious to us - we've spent the last however many months discussing it all in detail on here.  People who've just seen some of these articles on clickbait site?  They need told the obvious things.

Maybe our timeline is all wrong.

Most of the talk seems to put things in the "finishing touches" stage of the game.  What is these talks haven't been going on all that long?

As is often pointed out to me, I have no clue what Axl has been doing with his time in calendar 2015.  Is it possible after taking a long time to decide how to proceed, he only started really entertaining this reunion talk more recently?

I just can't believe these contracts and all thee terms could be quite this complicated, to necessitate haggling for 6-8 months over them.  I also don't know if that's great news.  If this is being negotiated in that manner, doesn't that suggest the whole thing would be pretty fragile?

I do think negotiation could be complicated depending of the character of things that are being negotiated. If they plan a one off show, yeah that easy. But if they meant a long term partnership, albums, tours, DVDs, etc. Well that?s a lot  more complex

Can anyone picture the scene of Axl, Slash, and Duff all up on a dais, chuckling about how they had to pretty much play everybody all this time?

Can anyone picture the scene of Axl, Slash, and Duff all up on a dais, chuckling about how they had to pretty much play everybody all this time?

Haha

If this ever happens... I can't see the big photo op press conference with them hugging it out...

You mean they've played a long game since 1996?  :o

Here is my concern.

The more we talk about how detailed the contracts have to be, all the details (big and small) that need to be agreed to...does that bolster or hurt the argument that this is something they really want to do?  Does that suggest a lack of trust?

I guess I'm asking how much of a strict business endeavor this would all be, as opposed to the more emotional guys wanted one final run on top with each other.

Hahahaha

No, just the past year or so.

Axl wouldn't even have to say he played coy, cause it ain't like he talks anyway.  Slash and Duff would have to cop to it though.

After reading this now I really feel for Axl. The por guy worked his ass off against all odds to make a new band and CD. And at the end of the day all he got was a bunch of guys asking Eddie Trunk about the second leg of a reunion tour

 :rofl:

I need a favor, all those who want CD II please ask Trunk if he has news about it. Just to balance things up a little bit. Please do it for Axl, just to cheer him up

  : ok:

It would've been some hardcore shit though.

Imagine them sitting by the table in 1997 and sorting out what Duff and Slash shall say in the interviews early on to create tension, maybe create a new band playing on the words "Guns" and "Roses". Axl plans to wait until 2008 to give "his side of the story", and then be totally dismissive of a reunion in the years to come. Duff suggests himself gradually coming back around 2010, maybe a one-off performance at first... Slash shouldn't then knock on Duff for doing that, then Slash eyes 2015 as the year he will start dropping small hints of contact with Axl again.

They've been thorough in their planning.

Here?s where the fans can?t be blamed for speculation; there has been no announcement from any source that this ISN?T happening!   (Slash, Axl, Duff) would have to be living on mars to not know of the speculation

Until any of the guys shoots this down, mainly Axl, Slash or Duff then we have to believe something is being planned.

Why?  Why do you have to believe?  What sense does that make?

Why?  Why do you have to believe?  What sense does that make?

Eddie Trunk also bitched that Guns N Roses got in on the first ballot to the rock hall while Kiss and a bunch of other bands he listened to in high school didn't.  He also said Guns N Roses only have 1 good album.  That means even delusional wind bags with shifty taste in music seems to realize how wildly inaccurate all of these stories have been.  What does that say for the rest of the media?

Is there some harm in thinking something is happening?

I mean...hell, we are supposed to believe Axl is hard at work on the album, despite the similar dearth of confirmation of such.  Right?

You don't have to believe, but it's reasonable to believe.  History has shown that Axl has shut down reunion rumors in the past.  He hasn't this time. 

The fact that history shows Axl shutting down reunion rumors makes it unreasonable to believe as far as I'm concerned.  You're believing against what the official source has always told you, and using "but we haven't heard from him lately" as an excuse to believe.

I just struggle with the inconsistency.

"It's cool and probably overdue." vs "Starting to look very seriously in that regard."

What's the difference?  Both are comments made by people that don't say anything concrete.

But, taking a step back, at least there are other rumors about the reunion.  Ain't dick floating around on that supposed new album.

Isn't it fair to say you are probably going to put more stock in whichever one you'd like to see more?  

In other words, if you are super gung-ho about this new album, you might be inclined to tell the reunion folks they are getting carried away over one line followed by silence from all parties.

Conversely, if you are more interested in seeing some sort of reunion, you are probably more inclined to point out that Axl doesn't have the most sterling reputation on follow through, and there isn't even any rumors you can point to that any of that "looking very seriously" came to fruition.

I think concretely dismissing either side out of hand is foolish.  No one knows jack.

There is definitely an air of conspiracy theory "logic" at work here on the reunion angle.

The conspiracy theorist's best friend is silence.  Why aren't they denying my claim that 9/11 was carried out by aliens from outer space?  THEY MUST HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE.

Stories are written based on a thing Slash told a Swedish journalist...

I think you had it right the first time with your previous comment... there seems to be NO current rumours about CD2... everything in the media (and yep their guessing) is all about reunion...

I think you had it right the first time with your previous comment... there seems to be NO current rumours about CD2... everything in the media (and yep their guessing) is all about reunion... based on that (and yes its a flimsy base), you would probably put your money on some sort of reunion, hybrid or otherwise at this point IMO.....

In saying that... no-one knows Jack... as you say, so i guess we need to just maintain these excitement levels and wait patiently either way.  ;)

Wellllll ... music is subjective...

Gnr is not one his favorite bands, but I think he understand the impact GNR made.

What Is CD2 ?

He completely disregards anything post 1990.

What Is CD2 ?

It's before CD3.  ;)

It's before CD3.  ;)






Ahhh, Thanks, After Of CDI

 : ok:

Yes, it's between CD and CD3.

CD would be CD1, but people are lazy, so they just don't type that 1.

At least it's not in Roman numerals....
CDI, CDII and CDIII....

That'd be confusing as hell!  ;D



/jarmo

The guy gets inundated with Guns N Roses questions regularly what is the guy supposed to do say nothing? Atleast the guy answers peoples questions you may not like the answer or may not give you a specific answer like yes there is a reunion or no there is not one. I think any criticism towards the guy is unfair. I will always take hearing something over nothing at all.

So I think 100% there are talks and hopes of doing something with GnR.

Here?s where the fans can?t be blamed for speculation; there has been no announcement from any source that this ISN?T happening!

To end this all that would need to happen is Slash, Duff, or Axl put out a statement saying this is not happening and they are staying on their current paths.

well duh, tell us smt we don't know?

 



It has been shot down since the 90's...



It wouldn't 'end all this'. It hasn't so far.

Axl:

 'Not in this lifetime'

'give me a break'

Slash:

"There will never come a time when we get all together and play under the name GUNS 'N ROSES because it's too fuckin' tainted,

Yeah music is subjective, I was joking around.  But, I don't think he understands the  size of the impact GNR made.  The bands he lumps them in with sometimes blows my mind.  I don't think it's him short changing GNR as much as it is him overvaluing bands that were on his lunchbox in grade school.  He completely disregards anything post 1990.

Ridiculous, it is not a myth...it may never get released but it is not a "myth"...don't be an ass. See, I can troll too. : ok:

BTW... Bodhi... I refuse to see the Point Break remake...what a disgrace!

Too many people have heard material to label it "a myth".

It may be, in the end, unreleased material.  It may all end up in the vaults.

But I think labeling it a myth would indicate the material simply doesn't exist, in any way, shape, or form...and that all the discussion about it has been fake(d).

Very tough to remake a "so bad, its good" movie.

Can't ever replicate the campy value that make it fun.

The 'Road House' remake will run into the same problems.

If I say I've painted a masterpiece, even if I can produce a handful of people that will swear to it on a stack of bible books, what value does it have to anyone if it never sees the light of day?

Aren't we both making semantic arguments here?

The chances of the public seeing the painting is a bit bigger if it actually exists, compared to it just being an imaginary thing that only exists in your mind....

So yeah, it does matter. :)

If I say I've painted a masterpiece, even if I can produce a handful of people that will swear to it on a stack of bible books, what value does it have to anyone if it never sees the light of day?

Aren't we both making semantic arguments here?

What value did Brian Wilson's 'Smile' really have, the 30 or so years it sat locked away?

Wilson and some of his buddies could correctly claim it exists.  But so what?  Who what that helping and what was it accomplishing for anyone?

We are in that "tree falls in the forest" scenario with this album.

Yeah, except it doesn't, really.

My imaginary painting and Axl's totally real album are running neck and neck right now on the relevance scale.

pilferk is right that its incorrect to label it a total myth, as if the sessions never happened.  That's obviously not accurate.

But until it comes out, who really gives a shit?  It has no value to anyone right now.  Nothing is being accomplished while Axl looks VERY seriously at it.

What value did Brian Wilson's 'Smile' really have, the 30 or so years it sat locked away?

Wilson and some of his buddies could correctly claim it exists.  But so what?  Who what that helping and what was it accomplishing for anyone?

We are in that "tree falls in the forest" scenario with this album.

My imaginary painting and Axl's totally real album are running neck and neck right now on the relevance scale.

pilferk is right

I have printed this, framed it, and hung it over my PC.

I also just had to break out the portable defib.

Elizabeth? Elizabeth? This is the big one!! I'm coming, Elizabeth?

:P

I have printed this, framed it, and hung it over my PC.

I also just had to break out the portable defib.

Elizabeth? Elizabeth? This is the big one!! I'm coming, Elizabeth?

:P

I tell you you're right all the time.

Save this sentiment for when I tell Jarmo he's being fun and breezy in one of our conversations.  THAT will be news.  "Man walks on the moon" type news.

(http://por-img.cimcontent.net/cms/data/assets/bin-201408/5f965a7b8d53c046500f830b084ec8bb_600x400.jpg)

 :hihi:

It has value to the artist...and maybe to those that have seen/heard it.

I refer squarely to "The Santa Clause":

Ever seen a million dollars, in person?  No.  I know people who have.  Does that fact YOU'VE never seen it mean it's a myth? Or that it doesn't exist? Or that it has no value?

And yes, I know it's not the same thing.  But in terms of "real vs myth", it's still a decent analogy.

There are enough people, in the industry, who have heard pieces of unreleased material, and commented on it's quality that I'm pretty sure CD2 isn't Santa, or the Easter Bunny.

Semantics? No.  Not here.  I think we're actually arguing reality vs perception, and whether something can be real just because the observer in question can't see it or perceive it.  It's not even "faith" on this.

But basically, we have what I call kind of the second half of Chinese. That's already recorded.

Notice how he didn't say he had pieces recorded.
Maybe next we'll be discussing what second half means....  If it's the second half, does it mean it's the pieces that make the whole second half and the whole second half is half of the full two halves? :hihi:



/jarmo

I agree with you that people from the industry have heard pieces of unreleased material. The thing is pieces are far from being a full album.

So if what Axl has in The Vault are pieces instead an album ready to be released, then there is no such a thing as CDII.

axl said the second half of chinese is recorded.

Folks have attested to that, and have verified hearing the material.

The only person who, at this point, i've seen assume that its only pieces, rather than a full slate of material at some stage in the production process, is you.

I'll stick with axl, and the folks who claim to have heard the material, here.  :beer:

No, it wasn?t me talking about pieces. You brought it up.  :smoking:

Look I?m 100% sure that over the years they have tapes with recorded material. Many band members have said they have share files of material that obviously has been recorded. Can we call that an album?

 With the old band we all have heard bootlegs with with demos, accustic versions, piano version, rehearsals etc. All that stuff is not the final product we ended up having. All that stuff is not an album all by itself.

If the new band recorded some accustic version of Soul Monster or a piano version of The General. That is not an album

THANK GOD someone got the reference.  I was legit worried nobody would and would be like WTF?!

No, it wasn?t me talking about pieces. You brought it up.  :smoking:

Look I?m 100% sure that over the years they have tapes with recorded material. Many band members have said they have share files of material that obviously has been recorded. Can we call that an album?

 With the old band we all have heard bootlegs with with demos, accustic versions, piano version, rehearsals etc. All that stuff is not the final product we ended up having. All that stuff is not an album all by itself.

If the new band recorded some accustic version of Soul Monster or a piano version of The General. That is not an album

From the Revolver interview-

?We recorded a lot of things before Chinese was out,? ?We?ve worked more on some of those things and we?ve written a few new things. But basically, we have what I call kind of the second half of Chinese. That?s already recorded. And then we have a remix album made of the songs from Chinese. That?s been done for a while, too.

It has value to the artist...and maybe to those that have seen/heard it.

I refer squarely to "The Santa Clause":

Ever seen a million dollars, in person?  No.  I know people who have.  Does that fact YOU'VE never seen it mean it's a myth? Or that it doesn't exist? Or that it has no value?

And yes, I know it's not the same thing.  But in terms of "real vs myth", it's still a decent analogy.

There are enough people, in the industry, who have heard pieces of unreleased material, and commented on it's quality that I'm pretty sure CD2 isn't Santa, or the Easter Bunny.

Semantics? No.  Not here.  I think we're actually arguing reality vs perception, and whether something can be real just because the observer in question can't see it or perceive it.  It's not even "faith" on this.

There... Your own post

As for the definition of album, I guess we have agree to disagree. For me not final versions, not polished, not mixed. It is no album. But if you it is, fine

I?m not talking about released. I?m talking about a process. Something that it is in production or preproduction it is not much of an album to me. Now if you tell me about final versions of songs in the process of being polished or mixed. That?s another story.

I?m not talking about released. I?m talking about a process. Something that it is in production or preproduction it is not much of an album to me. Now if you tell me about final versions of songs in the process of being polished or mixed. That?s another story.

I?m not talking about released. I?m talking about a process. Something that it is in production or preproduction it is not much of an album to me. Now if you tell me about final versions of songs in the process of being polished or mixed. That?s another story.

I know you don't buy in to this, but maybe there is a few songs he wants Slash to play on......

I know you don't buy in to this, but maybe there is a few songs he wants Slash to play on......

Frankly, the songs not being quite all the way done yet is a pro-Axl argument, as far as I'm concerned.

Why?  Because the alternative is that its all done, been done, and he's just been staring at the master tapes for 18 months, if not longer.

22 songs according to Tommy...36 songs recorded during the chinese sessions.

From the Revolver interview-

?We recorded a lot of things before Chinese was out,? ?We?ve worked more on some of those things and we?ve written a few new things. But basically, we have what I call kind of the second half of Chinese. That?s already recorded. And then we have a remix album made of the songs from Chinese. That?s been done for a while, too.

If a hybrid lineup is what they are doing, adding Slash to some of the more traditional tracks is a win-win for all.

Noted how media don't spin this 'Axl promise follow-up and remix-album after end of vegas-residency', but Tommy and Slash-interviews gets blown out of proportions? :P

Oh, it would help.

But let me ask you this.  This isn't like adding the Ron Thals of the world to a mostly finished tracks.  I don't know you can bring in the second most famous person in band history, a guy recognized as a true giant in his field, and tell him he's just throwing a few licks over Robin Finck's work.

Wouldn't you have to erase what's on there and give him a full crack?

Oh, it would help.

But let me ask you this.  This isn't like adding the Ron Thals of the world to a mostly finished tracks.  I don't know you can bring in the second most famous person in band history, a guy recognized as a true giant in his field, and tell him he's just throwing a few licks over Robin Finck's work.

Wouldn't you have to erase what's on there and give him a full crack?

maybe....the guts of the song would already be done so give Slash the guts and vocals and see what he can do with it.

Because no one believes Axl.  He's the The Boy Who Cried New Album at this point.

hahaha :lmao:

Because no one believes Axl.  He's the The Boy Who Cried New Album at this point.

Just because you don't believe a new album exists doesn't mean everyone shares your view.

That's not what I'm saying.  I'm speaking to the contrast in reactions.

My post was a response to the questions why "the media" is not holding Axl's feet to the fire based on his Revolver interview.

And the answer is that no one really believes him.  Not that he's lying.  But they roll their eyes as they read it, because his track record is so piss poor.

The diehard GNR fan wants to believe, so they have a rosier outlook.

But the rest of the planet?  Goes something like this :

"So, going to start the business of getting that follow up together for release, huh?  Great.  Oh, and a remix album too, huh?  That's just dynamite.  Tell you what...I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing in the meantime.  That cool?  I'm sure this is all totally happening though."

I don't think "everyone" has your outlook of not believing him, and you do not speak for everyone, nor could you know what everyone is thinking.

Without the sarcasm...

You might as well as not even have the conversation.

Sarcasm is the *best* case scenario of a reaction from non-GNR diehards.  I didn't even bother to speak on the people that give precisely no fucks about a new album from replacement players on any level.  People that absolutely exist.

Sarcasm is what you get from people still interested on some level, but well aware the relying on Axl following through on anything resembling a timely manner is a fool's errand.

Check the emotion at the door for a second, if you even can, and just listen to what I am saying.

Its less about not believing him, and more about believing it when they see it.  But given his penchant for absurd delays, little point in wasting a lot of time and effort following up on his claims.

Which is why there has not been much follow up, or wondering about his progress, since the Revolver interview.  Which is how this conversation began.

Thats a VERY narrow definition that I don't think you'll find many people are going to share with you.

So then what's your litmus test for finished?

Packed with artwork, booklet, and linear notes?

Mixed and mastered?

Fully recorded, and READY to be mixed and mastered? (This seems to be the stage the material is at, since Axl says the recording is done)

Completely written and ready to be recorded?

Something else?

Again, I refer back to CD.  From comments, it seems like the material is right about the place it was when we started to get the CD leaks. Fully recorded, but likely not final mixed and mastered.  And there's always a chance that certain tracks get re-recorded/redubbed during the mixing process, to get a specific sound.  That's true of every album recorded since mixing was a thing.

And yet...you don't think that's an album.  Sorry, I just don't think you're going to find many folks who jump off at that same point.

Before it was released we had something tangible. There was some evidence. We could at least believe there was something in the making.

This wasn?t the case with CD. Before it was released we had something tangible. There was some evidence. We could at least believe there was something in the making.

Who's "we"?  ???

I'm sorry if I don't buy this lame retort about emotions. Nobody believes that anybody here is a robot without emotions.

Anyone still giving enough of a shit to follow this misadventure from 01.01.01 onwards.

So...just about everyone here.  And countless other folks that don't post at this particular spot.

No, but you get your back up and take everything as a grave insult.  It suggests an emotional hypersensitive mindset.

I can't help or control the way you react.  If you choose to see things as negative or an insult, that's on you.

this misadventure from 01.01.01 onwards.

Its definitely weird.  I've brought it up, but got shouted down.

Using the band's past history seems to only apply on a case by case basis.  What's important is that everything is still rosy, so fear not.

Anyone still giving enough of a shit to follow this misadventure from 01.01.01 onwards.

So...just about everyone here.  And countless other folks that don't post at this particular spot.

I've never held a million dollars.....

I think the point is "we" think there is some evidence, in the way of comments from those in the band, and those outside it, who claim to have heard the tracks.

YOU (meaning Princess Leia, and those who might be on the same boat) want "tangible" evidence: IE to hear the actual notes played with your own ears.

I think that's a very narrow definition of something's existence.

I've never held a million dollars.....

For the live show thing: We have heard bits and bites in the intro (according to Axl and some band members) and maybe some solos.  Yes, they haven't performed the stuff, in full, live.  BUT, they also had issues with leaks and bootlegs with CD...and one of the primary criticisms from folks was they had "heard it all, already" when it was released.  So I think there's an easy explanation, there. 

I think the point is "we" think there is some evidence, in the way of comments from those in the band, and those outside it, who claim to have heard the tracks.

YOU (meaning Princess Leia, and those who might be on the same boat) want "tangible" evidence: IE to hear the actual notes played with your own ears.

I think that's a very narrow definition of something's existence.

I've never held a million dollars.....

It's a myth I tell you!

Like that line in that song about finding a million Dollars that someone forgot....

By "we" I meant fans in general. Was that hard to figure it out?

I think it was the outright leaks that played more of a role there, don't you think?

You can't really tell from a live version what the actual album version might sound like.  'Chinese Democracy' and 'The Blues' (as it was known at the time) from RIR III are still my favorite versions of the songs.  

But when we finally got the album, 7 years later, those versions were quite different.

The leaks of 'I.R.S.', 'Better', 'There Was A Time', 'If The World', 'Prostitute'...yeah, they were pretty much what we got on the album.  Only very minor tweaks.

Yeah, but I just roll my eyes at those sorts of questions.

Who is "we"?...Who are "the fans"?...Who is "everybody"?

How many times do you see that sort of thing in response to a post?  And it is ever NOT about trying to change the subject?

So playing songs live before you know when they'll be released makes sense to you?

When you say "us" and "we" you are attempting to speak for others, or you are insinuating you somehow magically know what others think.

Well, time went by and it most certainly all went up in smoke.  A few times over now.

Its a general term that is easier to talk about than the rest of the point being made.

We need to get to the bottom of it!

I think the leaks were the major part of it. But I think the fact a LOT of the material was played live contributed, too....especially considering how far out in front of the actual release date it was played.  I mean.....we're talking half a decade prior, in some cases.

If that is your opinion, why are you here on a fan forum of that band??

By "we" I meant fans in general. Was that hard to figure it out?

And the CD leaks is a really lame ass excuse. When OMG came out we didn?t have any leaks. When the band perfomed in RIR and Vegas 2001 there were no leaks either.

Because hope springs eternal.

Just because I'm not going to sit here and laughably try and pretend everything is going swimmingly doesn't mean I don't still hope it might...eventually.

Yeah, but I just roll my eyes at those sorts of questions.

Who is "we"?...Who are "the fans"?...Who is "everybody"?

How many times do you see that sort of thing in response to a post?  And it is ever NOT about trying to change the subject?

So what you're saying is absent that...live show playing of a few tracks and the leaks of most of the rest of it..there's no album.  Because you've already said that just hearing about "pieces" from other people isn't enough for you.  You need to hear enough to label it "an album".

I think the leaks were the major part of it. But I think the fact a LOT of the material was played live contributed, too....especially considering how far out in front of the actual release date it was played.  I mean.....we're talking half a decade prior, in some cases.

But I think if that's the criticism (and might have been a business point the label brought up in regards to the potential for CD2, maybe)....then you handle both parts.  Esp when you've already got a ton of material on your set list.

I certainly did not object to it at the time.  Did anyone?

It also spoke to the fact that they were excited about what they had worked out.  Let's cut the crap here.  

Do you think those guys got more enjoyment about playing the new songs they actually helped create...or running through 'Out Ta Get Me' for the umpteenth time?

Why, in your opinion, did they choose to play songs on the 2006 summer tour that had leaked over the spring?

I've heard people say that was "proof" the leaks were intentional, but I never bought that.  I always tended to think the played them out of a combination of the cat already being out of the bag, and the fact that if offered the band a chance to actually do more of their own material.

Do you think its odd that the others never press Axl to play more of their own stuff, rather than have the "new song" in the setlist being a song released in 1991 (Yesterdays)?

Do you think its odd that Axl is supposedly wanting to establish these new line-ups as a viable band, and figures the best way to do that it to play even more older songs they had nothing do with, both old GNR and random covers?

There really are no "right" answers here.  Just curious what you think.

I think in the light of today's cyber climate it is very understandable why new songs aren't played at shows- they would end up on YouTube within minutes- and is that the way you want fans to first hear the song? From somebody's low quality YouTube they uploaded?

First presentations and impressions are very important.

They played unreleased material on tour in 1991 but cell phones and the internet were not a factor then- even cameras were prohibited.

Gee, what would we ever do without your negative, toxic "open mindedness"

I don't see where anything is remotely as dire and dark as you like to pretend.

I don't think it was proof the leaks were intentional.  I think they were faced with the fact the leaks were out there, and they could move forward, and sort of grudgingly embrace the fact people dug some of the new stuff, or bury their heads in the sand and pretend they didn't happen.

FWIW, I think they made the right call to then PLAY the material live.  It gave them at least a small chance to present it in the light THEY wanted, and felt more comfortable with, over the leaks.

But, having said that, I don't think that material gets played, at that point, if the leaks don't happen.

I sort of disagree with the part about "low quality Youtube upload".  I mean: Yes, artistic presentation is a concern, and it might even be axls biggest concern, BUT...

I've seen full concerts in 720p taken from a phone, up close. 

The audio isn't PERFECT, but it's pretty damn good.

So playing songs live before you know when they'll be released makes sense to you?

That's what the band did last time around. Only to have certain fans complain about the "old songs they heard on bootlegs for years" when they were released.
I guess that's the explanation regarding live shows that I can think of.




/jarmo

So if they did it before I don?t see why all of a sudden  it is wrong to play new or unheard songs in a show.

Sure you do.

It's "right" because they didn't do it.  If they had done it (like the countless other examples that they did that very thing) it also would have been "right".

In other words, they were both "right" to do this very thing in 1987, 1988, 1991, 2001, 2002, 2006, and 2007...

...but also "right" NOT to do it in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.'

Guns N' Roses : Perpetually In The "Right"

Yep.  You can definitely get the gist.

And you can also make an at least somewhat informed definition on the quality of what you hearing.  Axl sounding good, Axl sounding shaky.  DJ nailing a solo, DJ being woefully out of tune.

You can get the gist.

MY point is that bootlegs have increased in quality, drastically, in the past, say, 3 to 5 years (and esp in the last 3...where every phone is pretty much a high capacity, high quality, digital recorder).  And those recordings might, possibly, effect how you can monetize your material down the line. Or how you get to "release" it.

Sure you do.

It's "right" because they didn't do it.  If they had done it (like the countless other examples that they did that very thing) it also would have been "right".

In other words, they were both "right" to do this very thing in 1987, 1988, 1991, 2001, 2002, 2006, and 2007...

...but also "right" NOT to do it in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.'

Guns N' Roses : Perpetually In The "Right"

Any new song played would doubtlessly be up on YouTube in a matter of minutes, this is a very valid concern.

The industry has changed, and so has technology and the public's appetite for immediate gratification.

Cell phones were not an issue in the early 90's, they were not so well developed in 2006- and you weren't allowed to have them in certain venues- for instance, the Hammerstein shows.

Having the first impression of a new song come from someone's questionable quality cellphone recording is a viable concern.

Yes, and it made pefect sense for the band to do it. During the club days they perfomed AFD songs before the album came out. They played Patience, Used To Love Her and One In Million before Lies came out, same with the UYI albums.

So if they did it before I don?t see why all of a sudden  it is wrong to play new or unheard songs in a show.

These are valid points.

However, do you think the odds are high that anyone that is actually in the market to buy new GNR material is going to be turned off by what they heard on a cellphone recording?

This is the part I can't reconcile.

Even if a new song sounded godfuckingawful, it would not even remotely affect my interest in hearing its proper version.

But good as it is, is it ever going to serve as a replacement of an official product?  I would say there is no chance of that.

These are valid points.

However, do you think the odds are high that anyone that is actually in the market to buy new GNR material is going to be turned off by what they heard on a cellphone recording?

This is the part I can't reconcile.

Even if a new song sounded godfuckingawful, it would not even remotely affect my interest in hearing its proper version.

Just because I'm not going to sit here and laughably try and pretend everything is going swimmingly doesn't mean I don't still hope it might...eventually.

Yes, and it made pefect sense for the band to do it. During the club days they perfomed AFD songs before the album came out. They played Patience, Used To Love Her and One In Million before Lies came out, same with the UYI albums.

So if they did it before I don?t see why all of a sudden  it is wrong to play new or unheard songs in a show.

Yes, before they were signed to a record company they played songs that were unreleased.... It's kinda the only way for bands to get signed and build an audience. So if you wanna do that, you got very little options don't you think?

Also, have you noticed anything changing between say 1991 and today? Maybe something relating to technology? Just asking because it seems like you're not paying attention to this thing called the Internet where something played live once will end up on the Internet in minutes for the whole world to see.... Yes I admit to being a smart ass, but I can't believe somebody would say something like "but they did this in 1988 and why can't they do it in 2015?". It's kinda obvious why.



/jarmo

It still doesn't explain why it is wrong. So what if a live song gets recorded and uploaded? if it's good, no matter how cheap the recording is, it is still going to be a good song, people will blame the bad recording, not the artists, unless he doesnt sing or play well, in which case its his fault and should spend more time practicing.

 Some artist have gone that way ,  instead of hiding everything they create they make the whole album available but still charge in case people want to buy them.

We've reached a moment in this day and age where people who love the music and the artist and have the money,  are the ones who buy the albums. They are the target audience.

If you are somewhat afraid that live recordings are going to hurt the sales of your album its because you expect people to buy the album without listening to it, in order words, they pay in order to check it out.

Yes, before they were signed to a record company they played songs that were unreleased.... It's kinda the only way for bands to get signed and build an audience. So if you wanna do that, you got very little options don't you think?

Also, have you noticed anything changing between say 1991 and today? Maybe something relating to technology? Just asking because it seems like you're not paying attention to this thing called the Internet where something played live once will end up on the Internet in minutes for the whole world to see.... Yes I admit to being a smart ass, but I can't believe somebody would say something like "but they did this in 1988 and why can't they do it in 2015?". It's kinda obvious why.



/jarmo

It still doesn't explain why it is wrong.

Technology is given too much credit in this debate.

Worlds of difference in "wrong" and not desirable or preferable.

Some people would go on first impressions, you are effectively diminishing the impact the song would have under optimal conditions.

GN'R did that in the past. Is it possible they decided to try a different way of doing things this time?
I understand how much you'd want them to play new songs live, but you have to understand that it's not only a good thing. There's downsides. I'm sure you can see that, and you're just arguing this because you'd prefer them to play new songs live and then not having the surprise effect later, right?

GN'R did that in the past. Is it possible they decided to try a different way of doing things this time?
I understand how much you'd want them to play new songs live, but you have to understand that it's not only a good thing. There's downsides. I'm sure you can see that, and you're just arguing this because you'd prefer them to play new songs live and then not having the surprise effect later, right?





No it's not.

You played a song live in 1991, and if somebody made a bootleg, it could get out. Tapes being traded and so on. But nothing like having it on Youtube. Almost everybody who goes to a show is a potential bootlegger these days. It used to require a bit more determination in the past. You had to get the gear into the gig first and bring enough batteries and so on.

So yes, chances of your new song appearing in circulation is way bigger and it gets spread way more today than in 1991. Sorry but that's the way it is.

Nothing to do with what bands people listen to.



/jarmo

It is the responsibility of the artist to make that first impression a good one, not the audience.

Some other people go on first looks, but we don't mind them.

UHmm, there's no surprise effect when you first hear them live?  ;D

I heard Madagascar live the first time ROck in Rio, to this day it is still the version I listen to. Some people were turned off by it on the VMA'S, but that was based on far more distractions than the song itself.

New people with a weird look, Axl out of breath, voice breaking. And a lot people didnt pay attention to the great  song behind it.
If they had not played that song live, I would've gotten the version that was on the album. And I don't like that version because Axl changed the vocals.

You could argue that the live performance hurt the album experience, but I could argue that it is just a better performance of the song and I don't think I would've liked the album version eitherway. So I may not have liked the song at all.

UHmm, there's no surprise effect when you first hear them live?  ;D

I heard Madagascar live the first time ROck in Rio, to this day it is still the version I listen to.

If they had not played that song live, I would've gotten the version that was on the album. And I don't like that version because Axl changed the vocals.

But you said it yourself: theres an argument to be made that, the reason you preferred the live version was...you heard it.  And you heard it first. You think its not so..but how can you, or we, be sure? You cant undo that experience.  And that, really, just makes the point. 

So did you or did you not understand any of the reasons why one wouldn't premier a new song live in concert before there's a release date set for said song? Just trying to figure out if you're just arguing because you want something, or because you don't understand something.  ???

/jarmo

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

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

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

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

Which, in the discussion, is exactly the point.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me put it this way:

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

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

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

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

Do you think those guys got more enjoyment about playing the new songs they actually helped create...or running through 'Out Ta Get Me' for the umpteenth time?

Yeah, with that tech statement, i'm out. Between the narrow defintion of what constitutes existence, and that stunnng lack of understanding of what s true in todays music industry.....and not just for gnr, for pretty much everyone...theres just not enogh common ground or understanding to base a legit duscussion.

Its just going to lead to banging my head into the wall.

In hindisght, maybe the band wishes your first listen would've been the album version so you didn't have that as your first impression?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And who is to blame technology or the guy who came up with the idea? Still it didn?t work for GN?R. Maybe it works for other artists. Maybe it doesn?t. In the case of GN?R. I think there was a lot more that went on besides MySpace and the leaks. It is posible that people listened to it. They didn?t like so they didn?t buy the album

Adele decided to follow other path. It worked for her it doesn?t mean it will work the same way or better for every single artists out there.

I don?t think there is magic formula to sell albums, except the most obvious one. People buy what they like

Axl could performed one new song live. Or he could try to sell a song on iTunes or on their official website

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

And who is to blame technology or the guy who came up with the idea? Still it didn?t work for GN?R. Maybe it works for other artists. Maybe it doesn?t. In the case of GN?R. I think there was a lot more that went on besides MySpace and the leaks. It is posible that people listened to it. They didn?t like so they didn?t buy the album

Adele decided to follow other path. It worked for her it doesn?t mean it will work the same way or better for every single artists out there.

I don?t think there is magic formula to sell albums, except the most obvious one. People buy what they like

Axl could performed one new song live. Or he could try to sell a song on iTunes or on their official website

Any damage done to the album's sales would have been undone with one timely TV appearance or a Rolling Stone interview. I think when you put leaks and MySpace next to the lack of real promotion, they pale into insignificance

Any damage done to the album's sales would have been undone with one timely TV appearance or a Rolling Stone interview. I think when you put leaks and MySpace next to the lack of real promotion, they pale into insignificance

I agree, of course.

Nah, that is simply your speculative, unqualified opinion :D

Birds of a feather flock together. :D

Based only on 50+ years of precedent in the music industry. But no, I'm sure you're right and I'm wrong and promoting an album with TV appearances and press interviews makes it sell less. That's just good logic.  :hihi:


Now you're just being embarrassing.

Nah, that's you that is embarrassing trying to play armchair quarterback e-expert.

"Based on 50 years precedent in the music industry" LOL at you.   :hihi:

I've been working for Rough Trade Records and more recently Sunday Best for 15 years, so you're spot on as ever.

You don't think there's been 50 years of precedent in the music industry for TV appearances helping to sell records. OK. I guess in your world Elvis and The Beatles on Ed Sullivan or Michael Jackson debuting the moonwalk on Motown's 20th were insignificant events and their respective careers and sales would have been much the same if they'd stayed at home petting their dogs.

Can you do me a favour and not reply to my posts or put me on ignore or something.

The case between Frontline and GN'R in 2010 looks into Chinese Democracy and what affected it's sales.

The public document is here http://www.khpslaw.com/pdf-Cross-Complaint-filed-5_17_2010.PDF (http://www.khpslaw.com/pdf-Cross-Complaint-filed-5_17_2010.PDF)

I didnt know all this stuff.

Explains a lot of things.
What happened to the case, did Axl win it?

The case between Frontline and GN'R in 2010 looks into Chinese Democracy and what affected it's sales.

The public document is here http://www.khpslaw.com/pdf-Cross-Complaint-filed-5_17_2010.PDF (http://www.khpslaw.com/pdf-Cross-Complaint-filed-5_17_2010.PDF)

Yeah, I had read through this all before.

Axl has a lot of very legitimate beefs with Azoff.  That Van Halen thing alone is a disgrace.

I think its obvious to anyone that Azoff's actions and motivations were sketchy at best, outright deceptive lies at worst.

But do we even have this album without Irving Azoff?  Like it or not, pretty much as soon as he came onboard, he got things moving on a release.  And within 7 months, the album was on shelves.  An album that had been in limbo seemingly forever.

I didnt know all this stuff.

Explains a lot of things.
What happened to the case, did Axl win it?

You get the album, but that was all. The release did not reflect the expectations of Axl in any way at all.

Imagine being Axl and reading on the internet the frustrations of the fans because of the lack of promotion. Everything that happens with GN'R reflects on him and him alone.

Also, in terms of releasing another album, how is Axl going to feel about that. Imagine the distrust he must have of the record company and alot of other people. You spend years of your life creating something only for the above to happen. It must feel awful.

It was settled a year later http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/settlements-reached-in-lawsuits-between-axl-rose-and-former-manager/ (http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/settlements-reached-in-lawsuits-between-axl-rose-and-former-manager/)

You get the album, but that was all. The release did not reflect the expectations of Axl in any way at all.

Imagine being Axl and reading on the internet the frustrations of the fans because of the lack of promotion. Everything that happens with GN'R reflects on him and him alone.

Also, in terms of releasing another album, how is Axl going to feel about that. Imagine the distrust he must have of the record company and alot of other people. You spend years of your life creating something only for the above to happen. It must feel awful.

Princess Leia why did you quote me in your signature?

I find it interesting...  :smoking:

Interesting read.  I note that Axl and his attorneys refer to the the AFD lineup as the "original member of Guns n Roses".  Can we please put this stupid semantics argument to bed?

Oh look, Bait.

yes, and u bite

Oh look, Bait.

It also says on #37 that Azoff wanted to sabotage things so Axl would have no choice but to tour with the GNR lineup from Appetite for Destruction and Use Your Illusion.

History does not change no matter how much you want it to.  :-*

Not bait at all.  I find it very interesting that they used the phrase original members of Guns N Roses.  We've spent countless posts discussing this issue, and it's interesting that Axl and his legal team call the AFD lineup the original members.  Why would they do that?  Do they not know the real history?  Or, are they just acknowledging what the rest of the world (save a handful of people here) deems the original members of GnR?

I'm not trying to change history.  I am trying to show you that no one (not even Axl) gives a shit about your technically correct, yet meaningless, distinction of original members.  But keep setting the record straight.  Maybe in his next lawsuit Axl will get it right.  :hihi:

I'll just bump my question in case it was somehow overlooked:





/jarmo

I'll just bump my question in case it was somehow overlooked:

Not in this century.

2006 probably had the best potential.

sure dx, azoff may have gotten cd released, but he did it by lying. its like sleeping with a girl by promising her youre gonna marry her afterwards and then not following through. total scumbag stuff. it must suck always being treated as an object instead of a person by both business partners and fans.

I'm assuming the last few years of the last weren't going swimmingly either. So about 15-20 years of you waiting for the next time things start going swimmingly again.
That must be frustrating for you.
Wonder if it's even more frustrating (if that's the word) to see others being able to enjoy themselves without carrying the baggage of all those years of feeling frustrated..... Who knows.

rumors indicate the return of Buckethead , Axl Rose is crazy ?

rumors indicate the return of Buckethead , Axl Rose is crazy ?

rumors indicate the return of Buckethead , Axl Rose is crazy ?

I suspect the thinking, or lack thereof, goes like this: A British site says "Rose is believed to want to play more gigs in 2016 to show some loyalty to his existing bandmates" -> Buckethead will return.
Done. New story to write, new rumor started.

I suspect the thinking, or lack thereof, goes like this: A British site says "Rose is believed to want to play more gigs in 2016 to show some loyalty to his existing bandmates" -> Buckethead will return.
Done. New story to write, new rumor started.

 :rofl:



/jarmo

Speak of the devil- look at this - GNR's 2016 Drummer Revealed  :hihi:

http://www.alternativenation.net/guns-n-roses-2016-drummer-revealed/

Since facts matter, the actual title of the article is "Guns N' Roses' 2016 Drummer Revealed?"

I agree it's a stupid article, but the inclusion of the question mark means the author is posing a question, not stating a fact. 

I found it, on a Brazilian site: http://whiplash.net/materias/news_796/235106-gunsnroses.html

I suspect the writer just thought it would make "sense".



/jarmo

Forget about this Brazilian site. Anyone can write an article and publish it there

That is a sad way of looking at life.

"I read the Internet, I know what's going on".



/jarmo

Eddie Trunk@

Spoke to @Slash last night and he said he is working on new songs for the next Conspirators album.

https://twitter.com/EddieTrunk/status/677356288137953281

Eddie Trunk@

Spoke to @Slash last night and he said he is working on new songs for the next Conspirators album.

https://twitter.com/EddieTrunk/status/677356288137953281

It is a disappointment.

I expected more from Axl Rose, expect more respect for the fans who follow him for decades .

I wish a Merry Christmas to Axl Rose, and that one day he respects the fans that made him famous and full of money

It is a disappointment.

I expected more from Axl Rose, expect more respect for the fans who follow him for decades .

I wish a Merry Christmas to Axl Rose, and that one day he respects the fans that made him famous and full of money

Well, you just bought yourself a lecture (or 7) with these comments.

Personally, if there is no reunion, there is no reunion.  Longshot anyway.  But that will be a hell of a lot easier to swallow if he has actually been doing something and will be back with a new band and new album soon.

However, part of the reason I am really pulling for the reunion is that I don't think any of that shit is happening.  If there truly is no reunion, I don't expect we'll hear a peep anyway.  But if we did, I don't see why it wouldn't be more of that same, vague "we are still looking at everything" type of bullshit.

What I don't understand is, if there is no reunion, why nobody shoots down all of the rumors ?!  :crying:

I agree.  But silence is not "proof" of anything, unfortuantely.

You could just as easily argue there have been no comments because neither side feels the need, as they are long on record being against the idea.

Yes, but when you've got people close to Axl saying they hope they get together (TOMMY, DJ ASHBA) (having a clue or not of what is going on), its far different than a rumor on a brazilian site, that PEPE from Mexico can edit.  :rant:

It is a disappointment.

I expected more from Axl Rose, expect more respect for the fans who follow him for decades .

I wish a Merry Christmas to Axl Rose, and that one day he respects the fans that made him famous and full of money

Hahahaha

Axl is the only one with anything to lose if this doesn't happen.

If there is no reunion, fans of each side will then ask what they will be doing instead.  Slash will have answer to that question, so no worries for him..

Will Axl?  Highly unlikely.

So you don't think he knows what he will be doing next? Laughable.

And- re: signature-  I'm not on your team.

I didn't say that at all.

"Not much" is still an answer, just a shitty one.

My point is that Slash's fans will have an actual alternative to no reunion.  We, will not.

My point is that Slash's fans will have an actual alternative to no reunion.  We, will not.

Yeah, but are you even you?

Oh, so you can tell the future now? Amazing!

Haha.
Both alternatives are the same. No reunion.  :P

It is a disappointment.

I expected more from Axl Rose, expect more respect for the fans who follow him for decades .

I wish a Merry Christmas to Axl Rose, and that one day he respects the fans that made him famous and full of money

What ? Axl What ? GNR What ? Five Months Of LIES & RUMORS No-Official

I?M SORRY FOR YOU... NOT SORRY FOR ME

Welcome The World Of GUNS N' ROSES

:beer:

Totally disagree.

If there is no reunion, there will be a new Slash album before there is a new Guns N' Roses album.

Which is incredible, considering the head start Axl has.  Or, would be incredible, I guess I should say, if you didn't know anything about Axl Rose.

There is no competition here, except in your head and in your spin.

I can, indeed.

For instance, I predict that in 2016 you will continue to wear out the term "entitled" (and all its variations) and that you will not find fault in anything that happens.

Totally disagree.

If there is no reunion, there will be a new Slash album before there is a new Guns N' Roses album.

Which is incredible, considering the head start Axl has.  Or, would be incredible, I guess I should say, if you didn't know anything about Axl Rose.

Speak of the devil- look at this - GNR's 2016 Drummer Revealed  :hihi:

http://www.alternativenation.net/guns-n-roses-2016-drummer-revealed/

Well, as I often say, we can't both be right.

Actually, let me amend that.  We couldn't both be right, so long as both sides of an argument had the balls to take a position.

As usual, I am willing to go on record, yet the opposition never steps up to go on record with the alternative.

So, I guess I better way to put it would be : I will either be right or wrong, and others too chickenshit to take a stand face no consequences, regardless.

Yet another Profile In Courage, this discussion.

I think your way of thinking is once again somewhat illogical.

Either there is a reunion, or there isn't.
It's not really a question of having one or a Slash album.

Haha, you truly have delusions of grandeur- your posts and "positions" aren't noble or courageous.  :hihi:

The position one takes is not noble.  Its not having the courage to take one that makes one a coward, however.

Handy dandy example :

Stance : "Absent a reunion, there will be a Slash album before there is a Guns N' Roses one".

Now if you are going to speak out and call that bullshit, go on record with the alternative.  Over time, we see who is right and who is wrong.

Ah...but that's the rub, isn't it?  Doing so means you have to actually rely on Axl to come through for you.  And despite your constant proclamations of total faith, in actual fact, you don't have it.

So you don't take the position.  You don't take any position, actually.

Always easier to avoid being wrong when you never step up.  Pretty sad state of affairs though.

The original post of mine you quoted was about how Axl has more to lose than Slash in the case of no reunion, because Slash will actually get off his ass and have something else for his fans, while our man is highly unlikely to do so.

That's the argument.

You attempting to reframe it because its uncomfortable has no relevance to me.

Always easier to avoid being wrong when you never step up.  Pretty sad state of affairs though.

This People Not Have Life ?

I think the argument is that you think you know what's gonna happen. The truth is, you're just guessing.
And no matter what happens, you'll still be right about something. Because essentially, there's always something not 100% right.... So you can keep this act up.

Even if GN'R would win this imaginary race you've created, you wouldn't admit being wrong.

Of course they do.  But when it comes to this particular subject, there are some answers better than others.

People aren't going to stop living their lives is there is no reunion.  But that doesn't mean they are as excited about a new Slash album.

That's all.

Amusing, and simply another case of you attempting to establish some sort of online pseudo courageous stance for some lack in your real life- compensation is always a little pathetic.

I am making an educated guess based on all available evidence, yes, I am.

If there were no reunion, but Axl still came out with an album before Slash, of course I'd admit I was wrong.

How would I get out of it?  I've spelled out in no uncertain terms what I think will happen.  I am either right or wrong.  There is no wiggle room on this one.

I don't think Slash or Duff would and will sit still in waiting for something to move on GNR ...if it's even being considered.

So therefore either of them working on songs for something else at present time doesn't mean something with GNR isn't happening.

Ah, so we're on to the "you must be a loser in real life because you have a different opinion than me on the internet" portion of the proceedings.

I see.  I accept your unconditional surrender on this topic.

How would you get out of it? I'm sure you could find a way.

The Slash new album is not really news

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=66311.0

The Slash new album is not really news

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=66311.0

The glass half full position, I think, is to simply say Slash is not going to totally put his life on complete hold for someone as unreliable as Axl.

In other words, there could still be talks that this could all happen, but Slash is still going to hedge his bets.  And its not like songs he works on now can't still be used down the line somewhere, anyway.

I have to say Eddie Trunk needs to shut the fuck up........he is turning in to clickbait personified. :rant:

Grow up, dude.