Axl Rose is not a hasbeen and here's why...

[GNR123GNR456]

if at least a new single isn't released on itunes before the vegas residency shows.....the critics will continue saying axl rose is washed up in the industry

if axl would release a new single on itunes and talk about the latest guns n roses masterpiece music video called better...if axl did things like this before the vegas residency shows...axl wouldn't be considered a has been in the general sense by the public and critics

You really think that would change the media's minds? I get your point and you may be right...

But the fact that the media just loves terrorizing everything tells me it wouldn't make much of a difference.

Axl would release a new single and the media and others would tear it apart.

Axl would do interviews and stuff promoting the vegas shows, they would call him names etc. again tear him apart.

I think Axl understands this, and has understood this since Appetite.

"It's so easy to be social

It's so easy to be cool

Yeah it's easy to be hungry

When you ain't got sh*t to lose"

releasing a fresh single on itunes before vegas residency shows would change minds. because rhianna just released a new song about diamonds. rollingstone.com previewed the song and the music public loves it. minds have been changed about rhianna. the same minds can be changed about axl rose too. if axl releases a new single before vegas residency

Checked on Diamonds on YouTube today. It's ok, not full on Rhianna pop'ness..

well. it's a game changing song for rhianna. shows her in a new light. shows she can do more than techno beats and stuff. that she can change minds and do cool pop songs for a female artist like alicia keys and britney spears. axl can do the same thing. axl can change the same minds. releasing a new song. a new song like: soulmonster. the general. or blood in the water. if axl did it and did it before vegas residency shows...axl would be supported in general and everybody would be watching and streaming vegas residency shows for everybody

I promise you, it wouldn't please everyone.... there are tons of people here that could still moan about his wrongdoings.

If Axl release a new song, or new album, I wouldn't have anything to complain about for a long time. The only negative I have about Axl is that he seems to live in the past. So, if he was to release a new song, or new album, that perception of him would chance. For me, atleast.

[Un42nutzly]

if at least a new single isn't released on itunes before the vegas residency shows.....the critics will continue saying axl rose is washed up in the industry

if axl would release a new single on itunes and talk about the latest guns n roses masterpiece music video called better...if axl did things like this before the vegas residency shows...axl wouldn't be considered a has been in the general sense by the public and critics

You really think that would change the media's minds? I get your point and you may be right...

But the fact that the media just loves terrorizing everything tells me it wouldn't make much of a difference.

Axl would release a new single and the media and others would tear it apart.

Axl would do interviews and stuff promoting the vegas shows, they would call him names etc. again tear him apart.

I think Axl understands this, and has understood this since Appetite.

"It's so easy to be social

It's so easy to be cool

Yeah it's easy to be hungry

When you ain't got sh*t to lose"

releasing a fresh single on itunes before vegas residency shows would change minds. because rhianna just released a new song about diamonds. rollingstone.com previewed the song and the music public loves it. minds have been changed about rhianna. the same minds can be changed about axl rose too. if axl releases a new single before vegas residency

Checked on Diamonds on YouTube today. It's ok, not full on Rhianna pop'ness..

well. it's a game changing song for rhianna. shows her in a new light. shows she can do more than techno beats and stuff. that she can change minds and do cool pop songs for a female artist like alicia keys and britney spears. axl can do the same thing. axl can change the same minds. releasing a new song. a new song like: soulmonster. the general. or blood in the water. if axl did it and did it before vegas residency shows...axl would be supported in general and everybody would be watching and streaming vegas residency shows for everybody

I promise you, it wouldn't please everyone.... there are tons of people here that could still moan about his wrongdoings.

If Axl release a new song, or new album, I wouldn't have anything to complain about for a long time. The only negative I have about Axl is that he seems to live in the past. So, if he was to release a new song, or new album, that perception of him would chance. For me, atleast.

Yeah, some people (you) use constructive criticism instead of flaming and trolling always.

But yeah, I see what you mean, let's hope for new music soon or something. I'd like to hear the band as it is today

[finck6]

if at least a new single isn't released on itunes before the vegas residency shows.....the critics will continue saying axl rose is washed up in the industry

if axl would release a new single on itunes and talk about the latest guns n roses masterpiece music video called better...if axl did things like this before the vegas residency shows...axl wouldn't be considered a has been in the general sense by the public and critics

You really think that would change the media's minds? I get your point and you may be right...

But the fact that the media just loves terrorizing everything tells me it wouldn't make much of a difference.

Axl would release a new single and the media and others would tear it apart.

Axl would do interviews and stuff promoting the vegas shows, they would call him names etc. again tear him apart.

I think Axl understands this, and has understood this since Appetite.

"It's so easy to be social

It's so easy to be cool

Yeah it's easy to be hungry

When you ain't got sh*t to lose"

releasing a fresh single on itunes before vegas residency shows would change minds. because rhianna just released a new song about diamonds. rollingstone.com previewed the song and the music public loves it. minds have been changed about rhianna. the same minds can be changed about axl rose too. if axl releases a new single before vegas residency

Checked on Diamonds on YouTube today. It's ok, not full on Rhianna pop'ness..

well. it's a game changing song for rhianna. shows her in a new light. shows she can do more than techno beats and stuff. that she can change minds and do cool pop songs for a female artist like alicia keys and britney spears. axl can do the same thing. axl can change the same minds. releasing a new song. a new song like: soulmonster. the general. or blood in the water. if axl did it and did it before vegas residency shows...axl would be supported in general and everybody would be watching and streaming vegas residency shows for everybody

I promise you, it wouldn't please everyone.... there are tons of people here that could still moan about his wrongdoings.

If Axl release a new song, or new album, I wouldn't have anything to complain about for a long time. The only negative I have about Axl is that he seems to live in the past. So, if he was to release a new song, or new album, that perception of him would chance. For me, atleast.

axl releasing a new song like soulmonster or blood in the water is the smart move to do before this vegas residency. rihanna, alicia keys, greenday, bob dylan, no doubt, alanis, aerosmith, and taylor swift have all done it this year. why not axl? to prove he's not a has been to critics and general music biz?

as for living in the past...axl does live in the past at concerts. why? 90% setlist is appetite/lies/illusions with 10% is chinese democracy material. it's time it's REVERSED

Edited September 30, 2012 by finck6

[Apollo]

and continues to play it safe through the ridiculous emphasis he still relies for the old material to put asses in the seats.

Relying on classic Guns N' Roses songs when playing Guns N' Roses concerts to an audience who mainly want to hear the classic material -- while still playing 5-8 songs from the most recent album! -- is not a "ridiculous emphasis on old material", it is giving the audience what they want while still showcasing the new songs and overall giving a kick-ass show few in the industry can match. I am sorry this is beyond you, but, to be honest, I think you are aware of this and just post crap to rile up people. Sad, really.

Saying that "axl's (sic) goal was to take a revenge on slash by proving that he could build a new guns n'roses" is pure conjecture. I believe that in Axl's mind there was a GN'R before Slash and he sees GN'R existing without him. Axl formed GN'R with Tracii and Izzy, they bailed, and it's Axl's band. He can tour and record with whomever he wants.

He took his sweet time releasing an album that he wanted to make and even four years later he stands by it by playing several of the songs live. He has a killer band, a strong legacy and a fanbase that still wants to see him live. I don't see that as "failing miserably."

If you don't like Chinese Democracy, that's fine. People are entitled to their opinion. But to say that he is a failure because he isn't living up to your standards really isn't fair. No wonder Axl doesn't like to come here, he has the worst "fans" in the world.

Brilliant, just brilliant. Thank you.

I never really respected Axl much at the beginning of his career, but the way he stubbornly refuses to cave in to what others want but instead insists on playing the game his way, is pretty admirable. He does what he wants, regardless of what others think and the amount of flak he receives as a result, and that requires quite a lot of integrity which I must respect.

Oh, Soulmonster, I just love how you take just fragments of what I said, a small piece to a bigger puzzle, and ignore the rest of the points raised.

It's fact that people are going to the shows because Axl keeps playing it safe and milks the cow dry. By now, there should be more of a delicate balance between nu material and old stuff. Give or take 50/50. Otherwise, you can't blame people for calling it a glorified karaoke outfit. Regardless of WHY that has't happened, it's beyond ridiculous Axl still puts THAT much emphasis on yesteryear all these years later, and I would love to see what would happen to attendance if he followed VR's and Slash's lead, and kept his heyday GNR stuff to a minimal and let his current outfit try and stand on their own two feet.

Nothing beyond me. Just, as usual, calling a spade, a spade.

hey guy, just dropping by to let you know the following....

1. OH yeah he's playing it safe omg..... He is 50 years old and plays 3 HOUR SHOWS

2. HE PLAYS 7 SONGS (IF NOT MORE) FROM CHINESE DEMOCRACY AT THESE SHOWS. (which is a normal setlist for most bands today) HAHAH

3. Only you and your buddy, mr. cupcakes, say this karaoke thing. Well and the media, you know the ones who want to know WHO MARRIED WHO!?!?!

1. With all the oxygen breaks and solo spots, it's really only an hour and a half-2 hrs, not 3, which is common for most acts. His voice has sucked since 2011, and hasn't gotten better. An attribute to what's defined as a has been.

2. He plays 7 songs tops. Mostly 5-6. And by this point, with all the time, effort, and money spent on nu guns, Axl should have more of a delicate balance with the set list by now, and regardless of why he doesn't is irrelevant to the point that it's flat out ridiculous. Of course he's not gonna stop playing CD altogether, because that would admit to the public that he is a failure, but if he did, most of the audience wouldn't bat an eye. And even when you put CD in the mix, they still come off more as a cover band. Fortus, Bumble, and Frank came in when the songs on CD were pretty established, and their contributions are pretty minimal in the grand scheme of things. Ashba's are nonexistent, and except for when Shackler's Revenge is occasionally played, Bumble and Ashba go entire shows playing lead guitar to "GNR" songs they had absolutely nothing to do with. A pretty sad sight.

3. Most of the general public is under the impression he's just an nostalgic act now. Most go to see Axl sing the hits. Not because of what he's done post '96. That's fact. And like his voice, even that will eventually wear thin.

1. Count the number of actual songs in a setlist... 26 SONGS... of HIM SINGING. Yeah he may run off stage for a couple of seconds for the guitar solos etc. Oh well, when he aint singing his butt off, he can do what he wants. I don't see you on stage doing what he does do I?

2. 7 songs of Chinese Democracy, a normal rockband plays probably 14 songs total. Which means 7 ChiDem is a pretty good number for one show. OF COURSE he is going to play some of the huge songs, because people want to hear AXL sing HIS songs. HIS voice. Even us as fans, well not you, always stirring crap up. Axl has some awesome players in the band and WHEN the next album comes out, with the contribution of the whole band, maybe you can go into quiet, but you won't, you'll have another thing to stir up. I'm sure you have accounts on the KISS fan forums too. HAHA

3. Don't speak for the 'general public', speak for maybe the MEDIA, because you hear what they say, and who cares what they think? All they are concerned about is Kim Kardash.

and FINALLY, all the stuff you post brings me to this question... Why are you even here if you have THAT many frustrations with the band? I have never seen you post anything positive.

If Axl was the same guy he was in 1986-1994, if he was releasing music on a timely basis and touring and promoting that music there wouldn't be much to make fun of him. The fact that he only released on album in 20 years isn't exactly positive news. Axl just has to get himself out there again, out in the media, in the spotlight. That's why I liked the TMS interview, because many people saw Axl as a human being, not a psycho/recluse. If he did more stuff like that the perception of him could change. Hiding away in some mansion not rehearsing, not doing interview's, and eating out isn't going to help his media perception. Add to that the fact his voice has deteriorated and he hasn't put out new music since Chinese Democracy when I'm pretty sure he has 3 albums worth of material he could release.

I understand there's thing weird opinion that Axl not doing interviews and not being in the spotlight means he has "integrity," but that doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. Axl use to be a normal artist, a person who seemed to want people to listen and enjoy his craft, his music. Now, he seems confident playing music from 1987 and having his band cover the old band material instead of having them have their own music to play.

Ok, atleast you have a good sense of criticism. Like I said, who cares what the media thinks? and even if Axl was more into the media aspect, people would still trash every little 'mistake' he makes. Looking the wrong way, sounding the wrong way, doing the wrong thing, doing the right thing. There is always something wrong with what he does... We all know the original lineup wouldn't be the same as it used to be if something did spark up. It's like divorcing a wife on a bitter aspect. Axl started GN'R so he should be able to continue it. In my eyes, atleast he is continuing it with some good musicians instead of doing nothing at all. He handles all the negativity very well, better than some people did in that limelight. :\

Not to be rude .....but you seem to be obsessed with what the media thinks. You seem to bring it up in almost every post you make. You ask "who cares what the media thinks"......apparently you do.

I would suggest you branch out the type of media that you use. You keep saying that no matter what Axl does, the media will trash him. I hate to burst your Axl Rose covered glasses, but the entire world's media isn't in cahoots to bash a 50-year-old rock singer. There isn't a world wide media conspiracy to bash Axl Rose.

Axl starts a show 3-hours late, goes over the time deadline, gets in fights with security guards, photographers, fashion designers, writes ridiculous letters and doesn't show up for things like the HOF induction, says a new album will come out and it doesn't, continually loses band members, doesn't show up for shows, causes riots, beats women, spends 14 years and 14 million on one album........when the media reports on these things, they are reporting the FACTS. Would you rather the NEWS MEDIA only report positive things? Is that how you think the news world should work? Nothing negative ever is posted, only positive things that happen? Use the last RnR as an example. Axl put on a sub-par performance, his voice was not strong at all, and on two different occassions he actually forgot the words to his OWN songs. Should the media have ignored all that and just reported "Axl Rose kicked ass, he is the best singer ever." Or should they give an honest account of what happened?

The media isn't a public relations firm for Axl. They report what they see. The good and the bad.

I promise you that every media member in the world is not part of a "Bash Axl Rose" conspiracy group. I promise you that.

Since Axl decided to carry on with the GnR name, he has released ONE album of material. That is why fans are frustrated. Your example of 7 CD songs and most bands only play 14 total songs (really? Headliners only play 14 songs in concerts? That is lame. You are following the wrong bands!!!!!). You are painting a picture and leaving out key facts. In terms of music Axl has created since losing Slash/Duff and starting GnR over with new guys........let's say in the last 15 years, he has produced 5-7 songs that are played live. The majority of his show are songs from albums released between 1987-1991. How many songs are played from songs released between 1992 and 2012?????? That is called milking the past.

I surely hope that someday Axl will let this current band shine and do so on their own merits. I'd love for him to give them a chance and see what kind of music they can create.

[Un42nutzly]

and continues to play it safe through the ridiculous emphasis he still relies for the old material to put asses in the seats.

Relying on classic Guns N' Roses songs when playing Guns N' Roses concerts to an audience who mainly want to hear the classic material -- while still playing 5-8 songs from the most recent album! -- is not a "ridiculous emphasis on old material", it is giving the audience what they want while still showcasing the new songs and overall giving a kick-ass show few in the industry can match. I am sorry this is beyond you, but, to be honest, I think you are aware of this and just post crap to rile up people. Sad, really.

Saying that "axl's (sic) goal was to take a revenge on slash by proving that he could build a new guns n'roses" is pure conjecture. I believe that in Axl's mind there was a GN'R before Slash and he sees GN'R existing without him. Axl formed GN'R with Tracii and Izzy, they bailed, and it's Axl's band. He can tour and record with whomever he wants.

He took his sweet time releasing an album that he wanted to make and even four years later he stands by it by playing several of the songs live. He has a killer band, a strong legacy and a fanbase that still wants to see him live. I don't see that as "failing miserably."

If you don't like Chinese Democracy, that's fine. People are entitled to their opinion. But to say that he is a failure because he isn't living up to your standards really isn't fair. No wonder Axl doesn't like to come here, he has the worst "fans" in the world.

Brilliant, just brilliant. Thank you.

I never really respected Axl much at the beginning of his career, but the way he stubbornly refuses to cave in to what others want but instead insists on playing the game his way, is pretty admirable. He does what he wants, regardless of what others think and the amount of flak he receives as a result, and that requires quite a lot of integrity which I must respect.

Oh, Soulmonster, I just love how you take just fragments of what I said, a small piece to a bigger puzzle, and ignore the rest of the points raised.

It's fact that people are going to the shows because Axl keeps playing it safe and milks the cow dry. By now, there should be more of a delicate balance between nu material and old stuff. Give or take 50/50. Otherwise, you can't blame people for calling it a glorified karaoke outfit. Regardless of WHY that has't happened, it's beyond ridiculous Axl still puts THAT much emphasis on yesteryear all these years later, and I would love to see what would happen to attendance if he followed VR's and Slash's lead, and kept his heyday GNR stuff to a minimal and let his current outfit try and stand on their own two feet.

Nothing beyond me. Just, as usual, calling a spade, a spade.

hey guy, just dropping by to let you know the following....

1. OH yeah he's playing it safe omg..... He is 50 years old and plays 3 HOUR SHOWS

2. HE PLAYS 7 SONGS (IF NOT MORE) FROM CHINESE DEMOCRACY AT THESE SHOWS. (which is a normal setlist for most bands today) HAHAH

3. Only you and your buddy, mr. cupcakes, say this karaoke thing. Well and the media, you know the ones who want to know WHO MARRIED WHO!?!?!

1. With all the oxygen breaks and solo spots, it's really only an hour and a half-2 hrs, not 3, which is common for most acts. His voice has sucked since 2011, and hasn't gotten better. An attribute to what's defined as a has been.

2. He plays 7 songs tops. Mostly 5-6. And by this point, with all the time, effort, and money spent on nu guns, Axl should have more of a delicate balance with the set list by now, and regardless of why he doesn't is irrelevant to the point that it's flat out ridiculous. Of course he's not gonna stop playing CD altogether, because that would admit to the public that he is a failure, but if he did, most of the audience wouldn't bat an eye. And even when you put CD in the mix, they still come off more as a cover band. Fortus, Bumble, and Frank came in when the songs on CD were pretty established, and their contributions are pretty minimal in the grand scheme of things. Ashba's are nonexistent, and except for when Shackler's Revenge is occasionally played, Bumble and Ashba go entire shows playing lead guitar to "GNR" songs they had absolutely nothing to do with. A pretty sad sight.

3. Most of the general public is under the impression he's just an nostalgic act now. Most go to see Axl sing the hits. Not because of what he's done post '96. That's fact. And like his voice, even that will eventually wear thin.

1. Count the number of actual songs in a setlist... 26 SONGS... of HIM SINGING. Yeah he may run off stage for a couple of seconds for the guitar solos etc. Oh well, when he aint singing his butt off, he can do what he wants. I don't see you on stage doing what he does do I?

2. 7 songs of Chinese Democracy, a normal rockband plays probably 14 songs total. Which means 7 ChiDem is a pretty good number for one show. OF COURSE he is going to play some of the huge songs, because people want to hear AXL sing HIS songs. HIS voice. Even us as fans, well not you, always stirring crap up. Axl has some awesome players in the band and WHEN the next album comes out, with the contribution of the whole band, maybe you can go into quiet, but you won't, you'll have another thing to stir up. I'm sure you have accounts on the KISS fan forums too. HAHA

3. Don't speak for the 'general public', speak for maybe the MEDIA, because you hear what they say, and who cares what they think? All they are concerned about is Kim Kardash.

and FINALLY, all the stuff you post brings me to this question... Why are you even here if you have THAT many frustrations with the band? I have never seen you post anything positive.

If Axl was the same guy he was in 1986-1994, if he was releasing music on a timely basis and touring and promoting that music there wouldn't be much to make fun of him. The fact that he only released on album in 20 years isn't exactly positive news. Axl just has to get himself out there again, out in the media, in the spotlight. That's why I liked the TMS interview, because many people saw Axl as a human being, not a psycho/recluse. If he did more stuff like that the perception of him could change. Hiding away in some mansion not rehearsing, not doing interview's, and eating out isn't going to help his media perception. Add to that the fact his voice has deteriorated and he hasn't put out new music since Chinese Democracy when I'm pretty sure he has 3 albums worth of material he could release.

I understand there's thing weird opinion that Axl not doing interviews and not being in the spotlight means he has "integrity," but that doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. Axl use to be a normal artist, a person who seemed to want people to listen and enjoy his craft, his music. Now, he seems confident playing music from 1987 and having his band cover the old band material instead of having them have their own music to play.

Ok, atleast you have a good sense of criticism. Like I said, who cares what the media thinks? and even if Axl was more into the media aspect, people would still trash every little 'mistake' he makes. Looking the wrong way, sounding the wrong way, doing the wrong thing, doing the right thing. There is always something wrong with what he does... We all know the original lineup wouldn't be the same as it used to be if something did spark up. It's like divorcing a wife on a bitter aspect. Axl started GN'R so he should be able to continue it. In my eyes, atleast he is continuing it with some good musicians instead of doing nothing at all. He handles all the negativity very well, better than some people did in that limelight. :\

Not to be rude .....but you seem to be obsessed with what the media thinks. You seem to bring it up in almost every post you make. You ask "who cares what the media thinks"......apparently you do.

I would suggest you branch out the type of media that you use. You keep saying that no matter what Axl does, the media will trash him. I hate to burst your Axl Rose covered glasses, but the entire world's media isn't in cahoots to bash a 50-year-old rock singer. There isn't a world wide media conspiracy to bash Axl Rose.

Axl starts a show 3-hours late, goes over the time deadline, gets in fights with security guards, photographers, fashion designers, writes ridiculous letters and doesn't show up for things like the HOF induction, says a new album will come out and it doesn't, continually loses band members, doesn't show up for shows, causes riots, beats women, spends 14 years and 14 million on one album........when the media reports on these things, they are reporting the FACTS. Would you rather the NEWS MEDIA only report positive things? Is that how you think the news world should work? Nothing negative ever is posted, only positive things that happen? Use the last RnR as an example. Axl put on a sub-par performance, his voice was not strong at all, and on two different occassions he actually forgot the words to his OWN songs. Should the media have ignored all that and just reported "Axl Rose kicked ass, he is the best singer ever." Or should they give an honest account of what happened?

The media isn't a public relations firm for Axl. They report what they see. The good and the bad.

I promise you that every media member in the world is not part of a "Bash Axl Rose" conspiracy group. I promise you that.

Since Axl decided to carry on with the GnR name, he has released ONE album of material. That is why fans are frustrated. Your example of 7 CD songs and most bands only play 14 total songs (really? Headliners only play 14 songs in concerts? That is lame. You are following the wrong bands!!!!!). You are painting a picture and leaving out key facts. In terms of music Axl has created since losing Slash/Duff and starting GnR over with new guys........let's say in the last 15 years, he has produced 5-7 songs that are played live. The majority of his show are songs from albums released between 1987-1991. How many songs are played from songs released between 1992 and 2012?????? That is called milking the past.

I surely hope that someday Axl will let this current band shine and do so on their own merits. I'd love for him to give them a chance and see what kind of music they can create.

I am least bit obsessed, more of disgusted with what they do.

and you aren't rude, it is understandable, I am just saying the media in the US don't care about rock n roll... and Axl doesn't show up 3 hours late anymore lol... opening band plays, maybe an hour later GN'R are on stage. He didn't show up for the HOF because the negative took over the positive. The only reason the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame wanted GNR was to be the reason why GNR reunited and to make all that money. Almost all of your characteristics of Axl is way exaggerated.

At the end of the day, Axl does what he is comfortable with and it is all his decision. Let me say this again, everyone who has ever been around him pretty much says "Axl just cares way to much"

and when a full 3 hour rock show is performed by Axl... and the headlines for the performance is something like "Axl has gained weight" which is a majority of what I see, that's ridiculous.

Edited September 30, 2012 by GNRFan53

[Bobbo]

and continues to play it safe through the ridiculous emphasis he still relies for the old material to put asses in the seats.

Relying on classic Guns N' Roses songs when playing Guns N' Roses concerts to an audience who mainly want to hear the classic material -- while still playing 5-8 songs from the most recent album! -- is not a "ridiculous emphasis on old material", it is giving the audience what they want while still showcasing the new songs and overall giving a kick-ass show few in the industry can match. I am sorry this is beyond you, but, to be honest, I think you are aware of this and just post crap to rile up people. Sad, really.

Saying that "axl's (sic) goal was to take a revenge on slash by proving that he could build a new guns n'roses" is pure conjecture. I believe that in Axl's mind there was a GN'R before Slash and he sees GN'R existing without him. Axl formed GN'R with Tracii and Izzy, they bailed, and it's Axl's band. He can tour and record with whomever he wants.

He took his sweet time releasing an album that he wanted to make and even four years later he stands by it by playing several of the songs live. He has a killer band, a strong legacy and a fanbase that still wants to see him live. I don't see that as "failing miserably."

If you don't like Chinese Democracy, that's fine. People are entitled to their opinion. But to say that he is a failure because he isn't living up to your standards really isn't fair. No wonder Axl doesn't like to come here, he has the worst "fans" in the world.

Brilliant, just brilliant. Thank you.

I never really respected Axl much at the beginning of his career, but the way he stubbornly refuses to cave in to what others want but instead insists on playing the game his way, is pretty admirable. He does what he wants, regardless of what others think and the amount of flak he receives as a result, and that requires quite a lot of integrity which I must respect.

Oh, Soulmonster, I just love how you take just fragments of what I said, a small piece to a bigger puzzle, and ignore the rest of the points raised.

It's fact that people are going to the shows because Axl keeps playing it safe and milks the cow dry. By now, there should be more of a delicate balance between nu material and old stuff. Give or take 50/50. Otherwise, you can't blame people for calling it a glorified karaoke outfit. Regardless of WHY that has't happened, it's beyond ridiculous Axl still puts THAT much emphasis on yesteryear all these years later, and I would love to see what would happen to attendance if he followed VR's and Slash's lead, and kept his heyday GNR stuff to a minimal and let his current outfit try and stand on their own two feet.

Nothing beyond me. Just, as usual, calling a spade, a spade.

hey guy, just dropping by to let you know the following....

1. OH yeah he's playing it safe omg..... He is 50 years old and plays 3 HOUR SHOWS

2. HE PLAYS 7 SONGS (IF NOT MORE) FROM CHINESE DEMOCRACY AT THESE SHOWS. (which is a normal setlist for most bands today) HAHAH

3. Only you and your buddy, mr. cupcakes, say this karaoke thing. Well and the media, you know the ones who want to know WHO MARRIED WHO!?!?!

1. With all the oxygen breaks and solo spots, it's really only an hour and a half-2 hrs, not 3, which is common for most acts. His voice has sucked since 2011, and hasn't gotten better. An attribute to what's defined as a has been.

2. He plays 7 songs tops. Mostly 5-6. And by this point, with all the time, effort, and money spent on nu guns, Axl should have more of a delicate balance with the set list by now, and regardless of why he doesn't is irrelevant to the point that it's flat out ridiculous. Of course he's not gonna stop playing CD altogether, because that would admit to the public that he is a failure, but if he did, most of the audience wouldn't bat an eye. And even when you put CD in the mix, they still come off more as a cover band. Fortus, Bumble, and Frank came in when the songs on CD were pretty established, and their contributions are pretty minimal in the grand scheme of things. Ashba's are nonexistent, and except for when Shackler's Revenge is occasionally played, Bumble and Ashba go entire shows playing lead guitar to "GNR" songs they had absolutely nothing to do with. A pretty sad sight.

3. Most of the general public is under the impression he's just an nostalgic act now. Most go to see Axl sing the hits. Not because of what he's done post '96. That's fact. And like his voice, even that will eventually wear thin.

1. Count the number of actual songs in a setlist... 26 SONGS... of HIM SINGING. Yeah he may run off stage for a couple of seconds for the guitar solos etc. Oh well, when he aint singing his butt off, he can do what he wants. I don't see you on stage doing what he does do I?

2. 7 songs of Chinese Democracy, a normal rockband plays probably 14 songs total. Which means 7 ChiDem is a pretty good number for one show. OF COURSE he is going to play some of the huge songs, because people want to hear AXL sing HIS songs. HIS voice. Even us as fans, well not you, always stirring crap up. Axl has some awesome players in the band and WHEN the next album comes out, with the contribution of the whole band, maybe you can go into quiet, but you won't, you'll have another thing to stir up. I'm sure you have accounts on the KISS fan forums too. HAHA

3. Don't speak for the 'general public', speak for maybe the MEDIA, because you hear what they say, and who cares what they think? All they are concerned about is Kim Kardash.

and FINALLY, all the stuff you post brings me to this question... Why are you even here if you have THAT many frustrations with the band? I have never seen you post anything positive.

If Axl was the same guy he was in 1986-1994, if he was releasing music on a timely basis and touring and promoting that music there wouldn't be much to make fun of him. The fact that he only released on album in 20 years isn't exactly positive news. Axl just has to get himself out there again, out in the media, in the spotlight. That's why I liked the TMS interview, because many people saw Axl as a human being, not a psycho/recluse. If he did more stuff like that the perception of him could change. Hiding away in some mansion not rehearsing, not doing interview's, and eating out isn't going to help his media perception. Add to that the fact his voice has deteriorated and he hasn't put out new music since Chinese Democracy when I'm pretty sure he has 3 albums worth of material he could release.

I understand there's thing weird opinion that Axl not doing interviews and not being in the spotlight means he has "integrity," but that doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. Axl use to be a normal artist, a person who seemed to want people to listen and enjoy his craft, his music. Now, he seems confident playing music from 1987 and having his band cover the old band material instead of having them have their own music to play.

Ok, atleast you have a good sense of criticism. Like I said, who cares what the media thinks? and even if Axl was more into the media aspect, people would still trash every little 'mistake' he makes. Looking the wrong way, sounding the wrong way, doing the wrong thing, doing the right thing. There is always something wrong with what he does... We all know the original lineup wouldn't be the same as it used to be if something did spark up. It's like divorcing a wife on a bitter aspect. Axl started GN'R so he should be able to continue it. In my eyes, atleast he is continuing it with some good musicians instead of doing nothing at all. He handles all the negativity very well, better than some people did in that limelight. :\

1. Ok, that still doesn't translate to him singing three hour shows. It's about two hours all things considered, which is perfectly common for what most bands play. And none of that matters if his voice sucks and continues to decline further like it has. I get that he's 50, but it doesn't change the fact that his declining voice is an attribute to being a has been. Fact.

2. Again, it's on average about 5-6 songs off CD, and by now, almost two decades later, it should be more about a delicate balance between old and nu songs. Regardless of what reason you wanna cite for that not happening, it's still pathetic that it hasn't and that he still relies THAT much on yesteryear to put the asses in the seats. It was his choice to continue on with the GNR name and move it forward, so if he doesn't do that, and still continues to mainly live in the old band's shadow, the "glorified cover band" criticism is a well warranted one.

3. You're living under a rock. Both the media and general public think this. You got to any website about music outside this forum, and you'll hear way more negative things about CD than positive from the general public. CD just failed to connect to an audience in general. I'll give you a visual stimulant that shows the general consensus of Chinese Democracy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5xAB2hGF_M

The general public is mainly going to these shows based on what Axl did in his heyday, not because of his post '96 efforts. It's common sense. Nobody cares. There's no general demand for mystique for another GNR album without Slash and co. Axl failed in that regard. He's strictly a nostalgic act now.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Bobbo

[Un42nutzly]

and continues to play it safe through the ridiculous emphasis he still relies for the old material to put asses in the seats.

Relying on classic Guns N' Roses songs when playing Guns N' Roses concerts to an audience who mainly want to hear the classic material -- while still playing 5-8 songs from the most recent album! -- is not a "ridiculous emphasis on old material", it is giving the audience what they want while still showcasing the new songs and overall giving a kick-ass show few in the industry can match. I am sorry this is beyond you, but, to be honest, I think you are aware of this and just post crap to rile up people. Sad, really.

Saying that "axl's (sic) goal was to take a revenge on slash by proving that he could build a new guns n'roses" is pure conjecture. I believe that in Axl's mind there was a GN'R before Slash and he sees GN'R existing without him. Axl formed GN'R with Tracii and Izzy, they bailed, and it's Axl's band. He can tour and record with whomever he wants.

He took his sweet time releasing an album that he wanted to make and even four years later he stands by it by playing several of the songs live. He has a killer band, a strong legacy and a fanbase that still wants to see him live. I don't see that as "failing miserably."

If you don't like Chinese Democracy, that's fine. People are entitled to their opinion. But to say that he is a failure because he isn't living up to your standards really isn't fair. No wonder Axl doesn't like to come here, he has the worst "fans" in the world.

Brilliant, just brilliant. Thank you.

I never really respected Axl much at the beginning of his career, but the way he stubbornly refuses to cave in to what others want but instead insists on playing the game his way, is pretty admirable. He does what he wants, regardless of what others think and the amount of flak he receives as a result, and that requires quite a lot of integrity which I must respect.

Oh, Soulmonster, I just love how you take just fragments of what I said, a small piece to a bigger puzzle, and ignore the rest of the points raised.

It's fact that people are going to the shows because Axl keeps playing it safe and milks the cow dry. By now, there should be more of a delicate balance between nu material and old stuff. Give or take 50/50. Otherwise, you can't blame people for calling it a glorified karaoke outfit. Regardless of WHY that has't happened, it's beyond ridiculous Axl still puts THAT much emphasis on yesteryear all these years later, and I would love to see what would happen to attendance if he followed VR's and Slash's lead, and kept his heyday GNR stuff to a minimal and let his current outfit try and stand on their own two feet.

Nothing beyond me. Just, as usual, calling a spade, a spade.

hey guy, just dropping by to let you know the following....

1. OH yeah he's playing it safe omg..... He is 50 years old and plays 3 HOUR SHOWS

2. HE PLAYS 7 SONGS (IF NOT MORE) FROM CHINESE DEMOCRACY AT THESE SHOWS. (which is a normal setlist for most bands today) HAHAH

3. Only you and your buddy, mr. cupcakes, say this karaoke thing. Well and the media, you know the ones who want to know WHO MARRIED WHO!?!?!

1. With all the oxygen breaks and solo spots, it's really only an hour and a half-2 hrs, not 3, which is common for most acts. His voice has sucked since 2011, and hasn't gotten better. An attribute to what's defined as a has been.

2. He plays 7 songs tops. Mostly 5-6. And by this point, with all the time, effort, and money spent on nu guns, Axl should have more of a delicate balance with the set list by now, and regardless of why he doesn't is irrelevant to the point that it's flat out ridiculous. Of course he's not gonna stop playing CD altogether, because that would admit to the public that he is a failure, but if he did, most of the audience wouldn't bat an eye. And even when you put CD in the mix, they still come off more as a cover band. Fortus, Bumble, and Frank came in when the songs on CD were pretty established, and their contributions are pretty minimal in the grand scheme of things. Ashba's are nonexistent, and except for when Shackler's Revenge is occasionally played, Bumble and Ashba go entire shows playing lead guitar to "GNR" songs they had absolutely nothing to do with. A pretty sad sight.

3. Most of the general public is under the impression he's just an nostalgic act now. Most go to see Axl sing the hits. Not because of what he's done post '96. That's fact. And like his voice, even that will eventually wear thin.

1. Count the number of actual songs in a setlist... 26 SONGS... of HIM SINGING. Yeah he may run off stage for a couple of seconds for the guitar solos etc. Oh well, when he aint singing his butt off, he can do what he wants. I don't see you on stage doing what he does do I?

2. 7 songs of Chinese Democracy, a normal rockband plays probably 14 songs total. Which means 7 ChiDem is a pretty good number for one show. OF COURSE he is going to play some of the huge songs, because people want to hear AXL sing HIS songs. HIS voice. Even us as fans, well not you, always stirring crap up. Axl has some awesome players in the band and WHEN the next album comes out, with the contribution of the whole band, maybe you can go into quiet, but you won't, you'll have another thing to stir up. I'm sure you have accounts on the KISS fan forums too. HAHA

3. Don't speak for the 'general public', speak for maybe the MEDIA, because you hear what they say, and who cares what they think? All they are concerned about is Kim Kardash.

and FINALLY, all the stuff you post brings me to this question... Why are you even here if you have THAT many frustrations with the band? I have never seen you post anything positive.

If Axl was the same guy he was in 1986-1994, if he was releasing music on a timely basis and touring and promoting that music there wouldn't be much to make fun of him. The fact that he only released on album in 20 years isn't exactly positive news. Axl just has to get himself out there again, out in the media, in the spotlight. That's why I liked the TMS interview, because many people saw Axl as a human being, not a psycho/recluse. If he did more stuff like that the perception of him could change. Hiding away in some mansion not rehearsing, not doing interview's, and eating out isn't going to help his media perception. Add to that the fact his voice has deteriorated and he hasn't put out new music since Chinese Democracy when I'm pretty sure he has 3 albums worth of material he could release.

I understand there's thing weird opinion that Axl not doing interviews and not being in the spotlight means he has "integrity," but that doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. Axl use to be a normal artist, a person who seemed to want people to listen and enjoy his craft, his music. Now, he seems confident playing music from 1987 and having his band cover the old band material instead of having them have their own music to play.

Ok, atleast you have a good sense of criticism. Like I said, who cares what the media thinks? and even if Axl was more into the media aspect, people would still trash every little 'mistake' he makes. Looking the wrong way, sounding the wrong way, doing the wrong thing, doing the right thing. There is always something wrong with what he does... We all know the original lineup wouldn't be the same as it used to be if something did spark up. It's like divorcing a wife on a bitter aspect. Axl started GN'R so he should be able to continue it. In my eyes, atleast he is continuing it with some good musicians instead of doing nothing at all. He handles all the negativity very well, better than some people did in that limelight. :\

1. Ok, that still doesn't translate to him singing three hour shows. It's about two hours all things considered, which is perfectly common for what most bands play. And none of that matters if his voice sucks and continues to decline further like it has. I get that he's 50, but it doesn't change the fact that his declining voice is an attribute to being a has been. Fact.

2. Again, it's on average about 5-6 songs off CD, and by now, almost two decades later, it should be more about a delicate balance between old and nu songs. Regardless of what reason you wanna cite for that not happening, it's still pathetic that it hasn't and that he still relies THAT much on yesteryear to put the asses in the seats. It was his choice to continue on with the GNR name and move it forward, so if he doesn't do that, and still continues to mainly live in the old band's shadow, the "glorified cover band" criticism is a well warranted one.

3. You're living under a rock. Both the media and general public think this. You got to any website about music outside this forum, and you'll hear way more negative things about CD than positive from the general public. CD just failed to connect to an audience in general. I'll give you a visual stimulant that shows the general consensus of Chinese Democracy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5xAB2hGF_M

The general public is mainly going to these shows based on what Axl did in his heyday, not because of his post '96 efforts. It's common sense. Nobody cares. There's no general demand for mystique for another GNR album without Slash and co. Axl failed in that regard. He's strictly a nostalgic act now.

I disagree with alot of what you said... but there is no point in arguing, we are both pretty solid in our opinion... But if you hate them that much why are you here?

[SoulMonster]

1. Ok, that still doesn't translate to him singing three hour shows. It's about two hours all things considered, which is perfectly common for what most bands play. And none of that matters if his voice sucks and continues to decline further like it has. I get that he's 50, but it doesn't change the fact that his declining voice is an attribute to being a has been. Fact.

Hmm, what actually is a fact is that almost all the reviews I have read from recent tours have praised Axl's voice. And singing 24.2 songs per show (current 2012 average) and 6-8 of them new songs, is pretty remarkable ever which way you look at it.

2. Again, it's on average about 5-6 songs off CD, and by now, almost two decades later, it should be more about a delicate balance between old and nu songs. Regardless of what reason you wanna cite for that not happening, it's still pathetic that it hasn't and that he still relies THAT much on yesteryear to put the asses in the seats. It was his choice to continue on with the GNR name and move it forward, so if he doesn't do that, and still continues to mainly live in the old band's shadow, the "glorified cover band" criticism is a well warranted one.

Hahaha

3. You're living under a rock. Both the media and general public think this. You got to any website about music outside this forum, and you'll hear way more negative things about CD than positive from the general public. CD just failed to connect to an audience in general. I'll give you a visual stimulant that shows the general consensus of Chinese Democracy:

I am happy I am not so weak and unassertive that I have to rely on public consensus to enjoy what I enjoy. That being said, CD wasn't very good, but still a brilliant surprise so many years after the old guns fell apart. And we might even get more new music! Well done, Axl!

[Bobbo]

GNRfan-It's no secret I'm not the biggest fan of what Axl and his employees are doing. But in all honesty, to me, and the majority of people, GNR are basically a thing of the past. I know legally they exist, but in essence they put out their last album of new material in 1991 for most. I specifically come here because most of my friends in the real world aren't nearly into GNR in depth like I am. Most tap their foot to SCOM and shit, but none of them really care beyond that. I come here to chit chat with those that are as in to them, in depth, like I am. I still think Axl's incredible from a performance perspective, at a decline, but still incredible at the moment I just don't agree with A LOT of what he's been doing since the mid to late 90s. But still I like to keep track of what has become of my favorite band in terms of what Axl and Slash and co are up to these days. And discuss it with those who care as much as I do, one way or the other, .

Edited October 1, 2012 by Bobbo

[Un42nutzly]

Bobbo-

Well, nothing but respect then. Debates can get heated at times here but can't fault you for stating your perspective.

and in the chat, I think you asked great questions, if not the best questions, but the way you said the questions made me kind of uncomfortable.

Edited October 1, 2012 by GNRFan53

[Bobbo]

1. Ok, that still doesn't translate to him singing three hour shows. It's about two hours all things considered, which is perfectly common for what most bands play. And none of that matters if his voice sucks and continues to decline further like it has. I get that he's 50, but it doesn't change the fact that his declining voice is an attribute to being a has been. Fact.

Hmm, what actually is a fact is that almost all the reviews I have read from recent tours have praised Axl's voice. And singing 24.2 songs per show (current 2012 average) and 6-8 of them new songs, is pretty remarkable ever which way you look at it.

2. Again, it's on average about 5-6 songs off CD, and by now, almost two decades later, it should be more about a delicate balance between old and nu songs. Regardless of what reason you wanna cite for that not happening, it's still pathetic that it hasn't and that he still relies THAT much on yesteryear to put the asses in the seats. It was his choice to continue on with the GNR name and move it forward, so if he doesn't do that, and still continues to mainly live in the old band's shadow, the "glorified cover band" criticism is a well warranted one.

Hahaha

3. You're living under a rock. Both the media and general public think this. You got to any website about music outside this forum, and you'll hear way more negative things about CD than positive from the general public. CD just failed to connect to an audience in general. I'll give you a visual stimulant that shows the general consensus of Chinese Democracy:

I am happy I am not so weak and unassertive that I have to rely on public consensus to enjoy what I enjoy. That being said, CD wasn't very good, but still a brilliant surprise so many years after the old guns fell apart. And we might even get more new music! Well done, Axl!

1. And there are reviews aplenty that criticize his voice, and most people here, both pro nu guns and "the slash holes" are at almost an universal agreement his voice is not really up to snuff, and continues to decline.

2. I know, tough point to dispute .

3. I'm not saying people should just blindly follow by example, I'm saying there's a reason that most people didn't take to Axl's post '96 ventures in terms of new material, and that's because, as you stated, CD wasn't very good, at least with connecting to an audience. And good luck with that last part,

Bobbo-

Well, nothing but respect then. Debates can get heated at times here but can't fault you for stating your perspective.

and in the chat, I think you asked great questions, if not the best questions, but the way you said the questions made me kind of uncomfortable.

Yeah man, no worries, haha, this is all just for fun, and getting perspective from each side.

And I guess we can agree to disagree on that last part, no offense, I'm just tired of explaining why I went about it the way I did over and over this past week. Look around if you're curious.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Bobbo

[Un42nutzly]

1. Ok, that still doesn't translate to him singing three hour shows. It's about two hours all things considered, which is perfectly common for what most bands play. And none of that matters if his voice sucks and continues to decline further like it has. I get that he's 50, but it doesn't change the fact that his declining voice is an attribute to being a has been. Fact.

Hmm, what actually is a fact is that almost all the reviews I have read from recent tours have praised Axl's voice. And singing 24.2 songs per show (current 2012 average) and 6-8 of them new songs, is pretty remarkable ever which way you look at it.

2. Again, it's on average about 5-6 songs off CD, and by now, almost two decades later, it should be more about a delicate balance between old and nu songs. Regardless of what reason you wanna cite for that not happening, it's still pathetic that it hasn't and that he still relies THAT much on yesteryear to put the asses in the seats. It was his choice to continue on with the GNR name and move it forward, so if he doesn't do that, and still continues to mainly live in the old band's shadow, the "glorified cover band" criticism is a well warranted one.

Hahaha

3. You're living under a rock. Both the media and general public think this. You got to any website about music outside this forum, and you'll hear way more negative things about CD than positive from the general public. CD just failed to connect to an audience in general. I'll give you a visual stimulant that shows the general consensus of Chinese Democracy:

I am happy I am not so weak and unassertive that I have to rely on public consensus to enjoy what I enjoy. That being said, CD wasn't very good, but still a brilliant surprise so many years after the old guns fell apart. And we might even get more new music! Well done, Axl!

1. And there are reviews aplenty that criticize his voice, and most people here, both pro nu guns and "the slash holes" are at almost an universal agreement his voice is not really up to snuff, and continues to decline.

2. I know, tough point to dispute .

3. I'm not saying people should just blindly follow by example, I'm saying there's a reason that most people didn't take to Axl's post '96 ventures in terms of new material, and that's because, as you stated, CD didn't connect very well to an audience. And good luck with that last part,

Bobbo-

Well, nothing but respect then. Debates can get heated at times here but can't fault you for stating your perspective.

and in the chat, I think you asked great questions, if not the best questions, but the way you said the questions made me kind of uncomfortable.

Yeah man, no worries, haha, this is all just for fun, and getting perspective from each side.

And I guess we can agree to disagree on that last part, no offense, I'm just tired of explaining why I went about it the way I did over and over this past week. Look around if you're curious.

Yeah i will for sure, but dont get me wrong... Every one of your questions i wanted to see answer.

[SoulMonster]

1. And there are reviews aplenty that criticize his voice, and most people here, both pro nu guns and "the slash holes" are at almost an universal agreement his voice is not really up to snuff, and continues to decline.

2. I know, tough point to dispute .

3. I'm not saying people should just blindly follow by example, I'm saying there's a reason that most people didn't take to Axl's post '96 ventures in terms of new material, and that's because, as you stated, CD wasn't very good, at least with connecting to an audience. And good luck with that last part,

1. The great majority of newspaper reviews praise his voice. Very rarely do I read a newspaper review where his voice is criticised. And as for what guys here might think who mostly just go by Youtube or are biased against the current band: I couldn't care less.

2. Why would I want to dispute your unrealistic expectations?

3. Yes, there is a good reason, but why care?

[finck6]

1. And there are reviews aplenty that criticize his voice, and most people here, both pro nu guns and "the slash holes" are at almost an universal agreement his voice is not really up to snuff, and continues to decline.

2. I know, tough point to dispute .

3. I'm not saying people should just blindly follow by example, I'm saying there's a reason that most people didn't take to Axl's post '96 ventures in terms of new material, and that's because, as you stated, CD wasn't very good, at least with connecting to an audience. And good luck with that last part,

1. The great majority of newspaper reviews praise his voice. Very rarely do I read a newspaper review where his voice is criticised. And as for what guys here might think who mostly just go by Youtube or are biased against the current band: I couldn't care less.

2. Why would I want to dispute your unrealistic expectations?

3. Yes, there is a good reason, but why care?

spoken like a true politician

[Saphyra]

It always makes me laugh when people call Axl a "hasbeen" and other such derogatory insults. To me, the definition of a hasbeen is someone who continues in their chosen field despite continually waning popularity and relevance (Sebastian Bach, Motley Crue, Def Leopard etc). These are people who continue to make new music but the sale figures are poor and they regularly tour but the venues are increasingly remote.

Okay, GNR is no longer a stadium band, but Axl still performs in respectable world-class arenas the world over! How many other so-called "hasbeens" can play venues like the London o2 Arena on consecutive nights??

The key difference between Axl's GNR and many other 80s rock acts in 2012 is that he CHOSE to take a hiatus from 94-2000 and he CHOSE to only release one album in the last 20 years. Frustrating as that is, he is the one calling the shots and the truth is, he has thousands of people in the palm of his hand waiting on his next move.

Granted, Chinese Democracy didn't set the world on fire like AFD or UYI, but who these days is selling those kind of figures?? The days of epic million-dollar music videos and albums selling 10-20 million+ ended long before 2008, so to place these kind of expectations on Axl's GNR is hugely unfair. The reality is, if Axl dropped a new album next month, it would almost certainly enter the top 5 on Billboard which is not something many "hasbeens" could achieve.

[Bobbo]

1. And there are reviews aplenty that criticize his voice, and most people here, both pro nu guns and "the slash holes" are at almost an universal agreement his voice is not really up to snuff, and continues to decline.

2. I know, tough point to dispute .

3. I'm not saying people should just blindly follow by example, I'm saying there's a reason that most people didn't take to Axl's post '96 ventures in terms of new material, and that's because, as you stated, CD wasn't very good, at least with connecting to an audience. And good luck with that last part,

1. The great majority of newspaper reviews praise his voice. Very rarely do I read a newspaper review where his voice is criticised. And as for what guys here might think who mostly just go by Youtube or are biased against the current band: I couldn't care less.

2. Why would I want to dispute your unrealistic expectations?

3. Yes, there is a good reason, but why care?

1. I'm fairly certain that I have read newspaper articles that have criticized his voice, but given him credit that it's still at least functional. That youtube argument goes out the window when you can compare any 2010 video with a 2011/2012 one, and have every 2010 be the stronger. It's fact that his voice is declining, and continuing to further decline at this point. You're just in denial if you think otherwise. Not to say he can't still work it, but it's beginning to wear thin.

2. Bahaha. Only here will you find that an unrealistic expectation. Yes, so unrealistic for a man that chose to carry on the name, and told us over and over again that it was specifically to move it forward, and progress. And almost two decades later, he's still mainly hugging on to yesteryear to make profit and to get people to come and see him. By now, again almost two decades later, we should have about 50/50 nu and old songs in there to be respected more than just as a glorified cover band. Otherwise, you can't get too mad at people calling it what it is. Not that logically unrealistic. It doesn't matter that "Oh, that's just how Axl operates, "It's Slash", "It's the label" "Things didn't go as planned", or whatever reason you wanna cite for it. It's still pathetic that Axl is still making his fortune off another band's success at this point. Nothing too admirable about that.

3. Just stating facts, and justifying why people call a spade, a spade.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Bobbo

[SoulMonster]

1. And there are reviews aplenty that criticize his voice, and most people here, both pro nu guns and "the slash holes" are at almost an universal agreement his voice is not really up to snuff, and continues to decline.

2. I know, tough point to dispute .

3. I'm not saying people should just blindly follow by example, I'm saying there's a reason that most people didn't take to Axl's post '96 ventures in terms of new material, and that's because, as you stated, CD wasn't very good, at least with connecting to an audience. And good luck with that last part,

1. The great majority of newspaper reviews praise his voice. Very rarely do I read a newspaper review where his voice is criticised. And as for what guys here might think who mostly just go by Youtube or are biased against the current band: I couldn't care less.

2. Why would I want to dispute your unrealistic expectations?

3. Yes, there is a good reason, but why care?

1. I'm fairly certain that I have read newspaper articles that have criticized his voice, but given him credit that it's still at least functional. That youtube argument goes out the window when you can compare any 2010 video with a 2011/2012 one, and have every 2010 be the stronger. It's fact that his voice is declining, and continuing to further decline at this point. You're just in denial if you think otherwise. Not to say he can't still work it, but it's beginning to wear thin.

2. Bahaha. Only here will you find that an unrealistic expectation. Yes, so unrealistic for a man that chose to carry on the name, and told us over and over again that it was specifically to move it forward, and progress. And almost two decades later, he's still mainly hugging on to yesteryear to make profit and to get people to come and see him. By now, again almost two decades later, we should have about 50/50 nu and old songs in there to be respected more than just as a glorified cover band. Otherwise, you can't get too mad at people calling it what it is. Not that logically unrealistic. It doesn't matter that "Oh, that's just how Axl operates, "It's Slash", "It's the label" "Things didn't go as planned", or whatever reason you wanna cite for it. It's still pathetic that Axl is still making his fortune off another band's success at this point. Nothing too admirable about that.

3. Just stating facts, and justifying why people call a spade, a spade.

1. Two points: (1) I never claimed we can't find reviews that state his voice isn't good -- of course there are -- just that the great majority praise his voice, and hence I, not having been to the shows, must conclude that his voice is for most parts more than good enough to entertain people. And I read EVERY review I can find, I am quite confident I read more reviews than most here . (2) I don't really care what fans think of his voice, because we fans tend to be awfully biased, and that's why I am only interested in what newspapers reviewers say, you get a more trustworthy, unbiased opinion that way. Fans with Youtube are completely irrelevant. All this being said, of course his voice is declining, but that is very far from saying his voice "sucks". See, that your problem, you are so emotional you can't realize that when the majority of attendees are happy with this voice then it means that your opinion that it sucks, is nothing but your opinion based on absurd high expectations of what it should be, while forgetting that the only mission of an entertainer is to entertain those that pay for it.

2. Hahaha

3. But you present the fact that GN'R is way past it's heydays as if it matters... Everything comes to an end, it is a miracle it has lasted this long. Get over yourself.

[Guest Sleeping Like An Angel]

I kind of feel like he has done so much awesomeness in the past that he can't ever really be a 'loser' to me.

It's pretty impressive given the short amount of time he was the king of the world.

[SoulMonster]

I kind of feel like he has done so much awesomeness in the past that he can't ever really be a 'loser' to me.

That's a great point. Every career follows a bell curve to some degree, with a period of time when things are slowing down. It happens to all artists who live long enough. What is remarkable with Axl is that he, more than 30 years after it started, still is popular and beloved by the media. Yes, they love to hate him, but it's always been like that, all the way since the beginning. The problem starts when they start to ignore him, when they become indifferent.

Axl certainly isn't a loser, he might be a hasbeen in comparison to what he was, but he still is relevant as an artist and media figure and he still draws more attention than most artists could ever dream of, and that without doing much at all. He has a low key approach to the media -- compared to many others -- and it seems to work for him. He is becoming more and more enigmatic for each passing year.

[Guest Satanisk_Slakt]

It's not about him being a loser or not. He obviously isn't, he has accomplished more in life than any of us ever will. But he is definitely a has been.

[Apollo]

It's not about him being a loser or not. He obviously isn't, he has accomplished more in life than any of us ever will. But he is definitely a has been.

I'd change that to "he's accomplished more in the music industry in his life than any of us ever will!

But as for the topic. I think if he simply released a couple albums over the next few years and keeps touring strong, Axl and GnR would be just as huge as ever. Not 1991 huge, but huge in terms of today's market. He has all the talent and tools to do that........for some reason though (which is his right) he chooses not to.

[Guest Satanisk_Slakt]

It's not about him being a loser or not. He obviously isn't, he has accomplished more in life than any of us ever will. But he is definitely a has been.

I'd change that to "he's accomplished more in the music industry in his life than any of us ever will

True. It's obvious that he always wanted a family. Kids. I suppose that it has saddened him a lot over the years that he never succeeded in getting one.

[Bobbo]

SoulMonster-

1. OK, but I've personally myself have read just as many newspaper articles that have criticized his voice this past year as I've read those that have praised it, and when they did praise it it was more of a "he's good for 50..." kinda praise. But that's just my experience. The point is, everybody on each side of the fence is at the realization that not only has his voice declined, but it's bought a one way ticket to suckville at this rate. It's at a continuous decline, with no signs of improvement this whole past year. I never said I should be the one to arbitrary decide where it's suitable, I'm just stating the fact that it's not so hot now, and seems to be heading down instead of up.

2. Again, don't expect you to argue logical reasoning and facts. You're better than that .

3. I only stated that in the context of a debate with a completely different user about how the general public perceives "GNR" today as strictly a nostalgia act. Different time and scenario to what we're talking about now. If you personally don't mind that Axl failed to connect to an audience through his nu material as "GNR" without Slash and co, so be it. But why get mad simply because I acknowledge that fact when talking about "GNR" currently?

[SoulMonster]

SoulMonster-

1. OK, but I've personally myself have read just as many newspaper articles that have criticized his voice this past year as I've read those that have praised it, and when they did praise it it was more of a "he's good for 50..." kinda praise. But that's just my experience. The point is, everybody on each side of the fence is at the realization that not only has his voice declined, but it's bought a one way ticket to suckville at this rate. It's at a continuous decline, with no signs of improvement this whole past year. I never said I should be the one to arbitrary decide where it's suitable, I'm just stating the fact that it's not so hot now, and seems to be heading down instead of up.

Haha, you have now gone from his voice "sucking" to his voice being on a train to "suckville" and that it is in a continuous decline. Those two things are very different. I agree with you now.

2. Again, don't expect you to argue logical reasoning and facts. You're better than that .

There is nothing logical in your absurd expectations that GN'R should play 50/50 new and old material. It might be a fact that you actually believe so, and hence my laughing.

3. I only stated that in the context of a debate with a completely different user about how the general public perceives "GNR" today as strictly a nostalgia act. Different time and scenario to what we're talking about now. If you personally don't mind that Axl failed to connect to an audience through his nu material as "GNR" without Slash and co, so be it. But why get mad simply because I acknowledge that fact when talking about "GNR" currently?

Of course I don't mind what other people think of GN'R.