The official Civil War-only "how many shades of shit is this GNR reunion actually going to be?" thread

[Towelie]

With all the drama and excitement that will inevitably go down in about a months time over at the Main GNR section, I thought the infinitely more entertaining My World Civil War section could have it's own GNR thread, where those of us with a more realistic set of expectations of this impending reunion can discuss what a clusterfuck and shitshow this is going to be.

My predictions? Of course, no new songs. I will be £50 better off thankyou very much RussTCB. Also, Axl will look and sound no different than he has this past 4 years, will keep his interactions with Slash to a minimum and it will generally be the NuGNR show with Slash and Duff replacing Ashba and Stinson. Basically anything that suggests any degree of effort on Axl's part, such as weightloss or including rarely played songs in the set is highly improbable. It'll just be Uncle Axl mugging off the GNR fanbase for the umpteenth time, only this time with Slash on board for an extra payday.

Call me a cynic, but lets see who's right, shall we?

 

Edited March 7, 2016 by downzy

[Len Cnut]

I think it's a load of fuckin' bollocks, the fact that we're a month up to it, the big fuckin' reunion that everyone wanted, and if pretty much dead as a doornail around here says something.  There's interest and whatever fans were there before will likely go but this idea that the world was waiting for a reunion to where as soon as they give the word there will be fuckin' hordes of people flocking, queues outside box offices and people busting a gut to go and see em, thats pretty much a load of bollocks.  It'll get it's share of write ups just like any old band reunion does but it ain't no special case.  Quite frankly i think The Stone Roses reunion was bigger and had more fuss around it than this did.

[Gracii Guns]

52 minutes ago, Towelie said:

Axl's part, such as weightloss

Of the last 20 years of GN'R drama, Axl owes you weight loss? Are you into GN'R because you liked to watch him look all sexy in cycling shorts in the early '90s?

[Towelie]

18 minutes ago, Gracii Guns said:

Of the last 20 years of GN'R drama, Axl owes you weight loss? Are you into GN'R because you liked to watch him look all sexy in cycling shorts in the early '90s?

I couldn't give a toss if he turns up looking like a fat fuck, I'm merely pointing out that there will be no effort made on Axl's part, as per usual. He will turn up woefully under-prepared, under-rehearsed, having sang a few lines of Jungle in the shower the day before, relying on the monitor to prompt him for lyrics, with absolutely zero effort made on his part to put on something new or interesting for the long-time fans.

[Towelie]

1 hour ago, Len B'stard said:

I think it's a load of fuckin' bollocks, the fact that we're a month up to it, the big fuckin' reunion that everyone wanted, and if pretty much dead as a doornail around here says something.  There's interest and whatever fans were there before will likely go but this idea that the world was waiting for a reunion to where as soon as they give the word there will be fuckin' hordes of people flocking, queues outside box offices and people busting a gut to go and see em, thats pretty much a load of bollocks.  It'll get it's share of write ups just like any old band reunion does but it ain't no special case.  Quite frankly i think The Stone Roses reunion was bigger and had more fuss around it than this did.

Yeah, it's funny isn't it? This board was way busier in the NuGNR days than it has been since the reunion was announced. I'm sure it'll pick up again next month, albeit briefly, just for the novelty factor of seeing Axl and Slash on the same stage together, but it has been eerily quiet around here lately and the timing is definitely weird. It's almost as if a lot of the folks who used to keep this board alive have scarpered since the reunion announcement, seeing it as the final nail in the coffin for Axl. Lets face it, there hasn't been much to admire about the man in the last 20 years, but his bloody-minded refusal to reunite with Slash in spite of mass public demand was one of the few things I actually respected him for. And now he's made a complete u-turn, everything he's said and done since 2001 seems very hollow. 

With Axl, he'd rather do pretty much anything than actually get off his arse and make an effort and that even includes reuniting with Slash. He knew the NuGNR saga had reached it's end and the only way he could carry on with the band was to put out new material or reunite, and the latter option required the least amount of effort from him and reaped the biggest return, so of course that's what he went with. So much for his so-called artistic integrity and "vision."

I also think it says something about human nature, we all want what we can't have and then when we get it, we're like "oh, that's it?". Just think of the pages and pages of endless reunion debates and threads, the will-they-won't-they speculation. And then when it comes down to it, it's a damp squib. It's just two blokes on a stage, doing some songs they've been playing separately for the last 30 years. Nothing that interesting really, and I think the ghost-town that has been MyGNR these last few months is evidence of that.

In a sense, I think things will be very different for Axl and GNR after these reunion shows. He's played his ace card now, so a lot of the fascination and interest has dissipated. He won't be nearly as interesting post-reunion as he was pre-reunion.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Towelie

[Len Cnut]

I always thought a reunion at this stage'd be silly and was always against it, at this point of what very little was left about ginger bollocks that was admirable it was his refusal to bite on a reunion, even thats gone for a burton now.  But yeah, the whole thing exciting about a reunion was them really being Guns n Roses again, like putting stuff out and being some semblence of that band of ne'er do wells that we all fell in love with, which aint likely at this age, bunch of old knackers now really.  

It'll do well, enough people'll come see it and it'll get its share of write ups but it aint the second coming of nothing, at this stage its just gonna be seen as a cash grab.

im happy for the die hards though, the people who just wanna see the cunts together up onstage by hook or by crook, i wager it'll mean a great deal to a few and for that alone its worth it...Im a cynical old bastard though, looks a load of old flannel to me, time waits for no one, least of all people for whom half the thing is this reckless dangerous persona.

and to be honest, they're not doing this reunion in a way that shows that even they have much faith in it.  I mean ive not been keeping up so feel free to enlighten me but they're doing it at Coachella right?  Shows a certain lack of faith, look at The Roses, they booked Heaton Park and sold the fucker out 3 nights in a row, quarter of a million people, shows a certain faith, even The Pistols did Finsbury Park which is a massive fuckin field basically, for a multi platinum mainstream rock band that were fuckin mahoosive in their day it dont show a lot of faith to just stick yourself on at a festival.  I know they got some other gigs lined up too, are they massive ones though or..?

i mean if you want to do something big do it with bottle, not to talk like a marketing wanker but come on, you're worth a bit more than just one of a bunch of bands at a festival where, lets face it, its as much about the festival as it is the bands onstage.  

Just googled it, its a bunch of arena shows, bit meh innit really, for the second coming.  Present something as big, make it big and it has a chance of becoming so yknow?

Edited March 7, 2016 by Len B'stard

[DieselDaisy]

We do not even know the band haha! Unless the three of them are going to sit on stools with acoustic guitars like CSNY? It is sort of cocky, announcing a tour without a full team: ''we are good enough alone - us three alone, bollocks off Izzy''.

I do not think I'm that much of a guns n' roses fan to be honest. I mean if I had £2000 to blow on Guns Vegas tickets, I would not blow it on Guns Vegas tickets if you know what I mean? It is like chucking your money down the shitter.

[Len Cnut]

2 hours ago, Gracii Guns said:

Of the last 20 years of GN'R drama, Axl owes you weight loss? Are you into GN'R because you liked to watch him look all sexy in cycling shorts in the early '90s?

No but i wager it'd be nice to from a fans perspective to not see the fat cunt blowing out of his arse after two numbers

[downzy]

We don't censor or moderate negative or critical opinions of the band (to a point, keep it respectful), but we ask that we keep things organized as to where certain topics and discussions should occur.

With that said, this isn't a MY World topic.  It's been moved to Civil War.

[Dazey]

They could have Ashba onstage farting the Scooby Doo theme tune through a bassoon and I'd still have a good time. This show has basically become just a part of a really cool week's holiday in Vegas. I've spent more time googling buffets (fuck off Len!  ) and drinks offers than thinking about what going to happen at the show. If it's mindblowing then all the better. If not then at least I've had a great week lounging by the pool, eating/drinking and getting to meet and hang with a bunch of GnR fans from all over the world.  

[Towelie]

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

I do not think I'm that much of a guns n' roses fan to be honest. I mean if I had £2000 to blow on Guns Vegas tickets, I would not blow it on Guns Vegas tickets if you know what I mean? It is like chucking your money down the shitter.

I don't know if that necessarily makes you less of a fan, just one who's older/wiser and has a more sensible view of the value of money. I wouldn't spend a penny on seeing Axl perform again unless GNR put out a new album and he performed at least 6-7 new songs. I have no interest in seeing the GNR hits for the gazillionth time.

 

[Dazey]

5 minutes ago, Towelie said:

I don't know if that necessarily makes you less of a fan, just one who's older/wiser and has a more sensible view of the value of money. I wouldn't spend a penny on seeing Axl perform again unless GNR put out a new album and he performed at least 6-7 new songs. I have no interest in seeing the GNR hits for the gazillionth time.

 

Cobblers! I'd be saying the same if it was a night in Manchester but if nothing else it's a good excuse for a good week on the piss. Sunshine, lounging by the pool, great food, lots of booze and just MAYBE a fantastic show at the end of it all. 

[Kelmi]

I think they will clear things up before encore. Axl will speak and duff will speak. Slash will laugh, but his eyes are hidden by sunglasses as usual. Axl will hug him. 

Thats an epic moment right there. We will get more interaction from the band after that. Mark my words, it will be awesome. I'm kinda glad they didn't spoil anything out yet. Its like, mehh, if everything was explained now and nothing was left for the show. No speeches, no epicness. Now everyones wondering what will happen. I'm sure they have all worked out, the tunes will sound better than ever and all that. Slash has awesome guitar tone nowadays.

Only thing I don't get why is everyone hyped for Duff. 

[DieselDaisy]

30 minutes ago, Towelie said:

I don't know if that necessarily makes you less of a fan, just one who's older/wiser and has a more sensible view of the value of money. I wouldn't spend a penny on seeing Axl perform again unless GNR put out a new album and he performed at least 6-7 new songs. I have no interest in seeing the GNR hits for the gazillionth time.

 

For two thousand you can go to the Caribbean on holiday. But then there are people here with Guns N' Roses tattoos (no, I'm not picking on you Dazey) so there is some fairly fanatical support here.

[SoulMonster]

18 hours ago, Towelie said:

With all the drama and excitement that will inevitably go down in about a months time over at the Main GNR section, I thought the infinitely more entertaining My World Civil War section could have it's own GNR thread, where those of us with a more realistic set of expectations of this impending reunion can discuss what a clusterfuck and shitshow this is going to be.

My predictions? Of course, no new songs. I will be £50 better off thankyou very much RussTCB. Also, Axl will look and sound no different than he has this past 4 years, will keep his interactions with Slash to a minimum and it will generally be the NuGNR show with Slash and Duff replacing Ashba and Stinson. Basically anything that suggests any degree of effort on Axl's part, such as weightloss or including rarely played songs in the set is highly improbable. It'll just be Uncle Axl mugging off the GNR fanbase for the umpteenth time, only this time with Slash on board for an extra payday.

Call me a cynic, but lets see who's right, shall we?

I agree completey. But like the positive guy I am I think fans for the most part will have a great time and enjoy the shows. Hopefully, after these shows, Axl and Slash will get it out of the system and can return to what they did previous to this "coming together again", and hopefully that will include new music from Guns N' Roses.

[SoulMonster]

15 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I do not think I'm that much of a guns n' roses fan to be honest. I mean if I had £2000 to blow on Guns Vegas tickets, I would not blow it on Guns Vegas tickets if you know what I mean? It is like chucking your money down the shitter.

Well, you are not a fan simply because you don't want to spend £2000 on tickets! Only fanatics do that.

[Towelie]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I agree completey. But like the positive guy I am I think fans for the most part will have a great time and enjoy the shows. Hopefully, after these shows, Axl and Slash will get it out of the system and can return to what they did previous to this "coming together again", and hopefully that will include new music from Guns N' Roses.

But do you really believe that's going to happen?

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Towelie said:

But do you really believe that's going to happen?

Hah, nah, there is a large separation between what I hope and what I believe in this case. I believe this is the swan song of GN'R. A last show and dance. After Axl will go into hiding. Maybe he will plod about on the unreleased music, maybe he will not. Maybe in some decades he will actually release something, maybe it will be postmortem. Maybe he will be chasing musical fads and trends, endlessly updating the songs for release, only constantly dicsovering that he has spent too much time yet again and the songs have become dated, shelving them and picking them up again when he again feels exciting about creating music. 

You might look at this at think I am negative about it all. I am not, really. Although a rather small discography, GN'R has given me so much and everything must come to an end. As long as Axl, Slash, Izzy, Duff and the rest are happy then all is good in this world. It doesn't have to go on endlessly. It lasted much longer than I ever thought it would. Probably much longer than they thought.

[Towelie]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Hah, nah, there is a large separation between what I hope and what I believe in this case. I believe this is the swan song of GN'R. A last show and dance. After Axl will go into hiding. Maybe he will plod about on the unreleased music, maybe he will not. Maybe in some decades he will actually release something, maybe it will be postmortem. Maybe he will be chasing musical fads and trends, endlessly updating the songs for release, only constantly dicsovering that he has spent too much time yet again and the songs have become dated, shelving them and picking them up again when he again feels exciting about creating music. 

You might look at this at think I am negative about it all. I am not, really. Although a rather small discography, GN'R has given me so much and everything must come to an end. As long as Axl, Slash, Izzy, Duff and the rest are happy then all is good in this world. It doesn't have to go on endlessly. It lasted much longer than I ever thought it would. Probably much longer than they thought.

Fuck that, be bitter.

I'm a very bitter GNR fan and unapologetically so. Don't get me wrong, it takes up no more than about 0.2% of space in my conscious mind, it's not like I lie awake at night crying myself to sleep about the lack of new Guns music or anything. But when I think of GNR, I think of Axl Rose's broken promises, wasted potential and laziness. This band could and should have had a discography at least three times the size it has. The fact that they only made three proper albums and an Axl Rose vanity project is a travesty of wasted potential. Almost as tragic as someone like MJ being off his head on prescription meds for the last ten years of his life and then dying at 50. Someone with so much talent, who instead of nurturing and protecting that gift, just pisses it away.

[SoulMonster]

I don't think I could be bitter if I tried

Besides, GN'R always surprises me. After all Axl is playing again with Slash. Maybe they will release more music together. What the fuck do I know.

[DieselDaisy]

This is how all rock bands end up I suppose. They start out in a dingy garage wanting to take on the world, and end their days playing greatest hits in front of corporate types munching on canapes. It happened to Presley. The Stones have been cash grabbing for the duration of their career. ''Play Satisfaction''. We shouldn't have expected Guns to be any different, despite certain corners applying the word 'integrity' to Axl Rose for some unfathomable reason! Only perhaps Bruce Springsteen, Prince and Neil Young avoid the indignity of becoming these shop store mannequins who are wheeled out for cash in gaudy casinos; Bowie also although he was only doing albums. And the crowds are unbelievably  ''Prawn Sandwich'' at these events; all VIP sore arseholes (''fuck me up the arse, band''), fifty credit cards and a laminate for their troubles.  ''Play Satisfaction''. They are the same types who leave the seats at half-time during England internationals!!

I've said elsewhere, it is the equivalent of Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, seeing someone so you can say ''yes, I have seen someone'' before they croak it, as in the way that gormless audiences would gawp at the final personalities and props of America's frontier period, all reassembled on stage - as if somehow they are having a holy communion with that much romanticised period of American history. This is how people see these bands. Look at the way they say ''I'm so glad I saw them once live'' when one of them dies haha!

It is all about capitalising, improving your batting average on a feather bed and ending up with a sore bum.

I never thought Axl would have ended up like this. In 2002 I thought he would put out weird industrial albums during the next chapter of his career, be a slightly more prolific version of what actually transpired I suppose.

[Len Cnut]

1 hour ago, Towelie said:

Fuck that, be bitter.

I'm a very bitter GNR fan and unapologetically so. Don't get me wrong, it takes up no more than about 0.2% of space in my conscious mind, it's not like I lie awake at night crying myself to sleep about the lack of new Guns music or anything. But when I think of GNR, I think of Axl Rose's broken promises, wasted potential and laziness. This band could and should have had a discography at least three times the size it has. The fact that they only made three proper albums and an Axl Rose vanity project is a travesty of wasted potential. Almost as tragic as someone like MJ being off his head on prescription meds for the last ten years of his life and then dying at 50. Someone with so much talent, who instead of nurturing and protecting that gift, just pisses it away.

I just take that as indication of the fact that they weren't that good in the first place.  It's like a boxers record, you'll have x amount of people going 'oh, such and such was a good fighter, could've been the best in the world but he didn't train properly and didn't have the character and wasn't right mentally and had a rough upbringing will led to this, that and the other' but then it's like, OK, but if those things are the case then essentially he couldn't've been best in the world because he didn't have the requisite tools.  I mean lifes simple, what happens happens and thats what he call reality, the rest is just a load of cobblers more or less.

This thing people have of saying 'GnR could've been The Stones' is like, first of all a 'if my granny had bollocks' argument and second of all a MASSIVE measure of disrespect to the prodigious talent of The Stones.  Like you say, GnR had 3 proper albums right?  The Stoneses strongest matierial run from debut all the way to, depending on your perspective, Goats Head was how many fuckin' albums?  I dunno but it's into double figures.  So basically you're writing off seven plus albums of seriously staunch matierial like it was a fart in the wind by elevating a band like GnR onto their level.  You are kind of taking away what made The Stones great to try and force some parrallel between them and GnR but back here in the real world The Stones got the job done and GnR bottled it.  It's like saying 'x' fighter would've won 'x' fight if he'd've showed up', yeah, well showing up is an important part of the act really, isn't it?  Sorry for the constant boxing anaologies! 

I don't think GnR had the talent to be a Stones, simple as that.  And by a very very very long chalk too.  You can't trivialise like, 10 albums by equating GnR to them or bands of their ilk.  Even a band like Led Zeppelin, who i don't really like but i recognise that their music is quite rated in certain quarters, or a band like The Who for as long as they were all alive, you simply cannot put GnR on level pegging with bands like that or insinuate that they were some kind of titans of genre cuz the work simply isn't there.  i know you only said potential Towelie so pardon me, I'm speaking broadly here about an insinuation that you see quite frequently around here. 

To just presume, with no evidence that they would've produced good matierial after the three they released is a MASSIVE presumption, y'know, 4 or 5 or 7 or 10 more good albums would've come out of them, to just take that for granted, when in reality the creative process is such that oftentimes people struggle to produce even one, it's not this guaranteed thing.  Or even a likely thing.

End of the day GnR are bottlers.  All this stuff about drugs, egoes etc etc, to me it amounts to bottling it.  'the drugs took over!' 'well why?' 'oh cuz fame is a rough gig!' well thats bottling it, isn't it?  'personalities clashed!' 'well we didnt get along and we'd all just had enough of each other!' again, bottling it basically.

I think, my time for some presumption, that all this drugs and egoes stuff, with all bands, is generally a reflection of a deeper psychological issue.  i think these lot stand on the cusp of something immense and the pressure of it just makes em act out and eventually they just fuckin' fold, it comes down to bottle i think and it manifests itself in acting like tarts and just going for each other until everything falls to bits...so everyone can sit around pointing fingers for the next 15 years when the long and short of it was that they didn't have the stones (no pun intended).

Edited March 8, 2016 by Len B'stard

[Towelie]

3 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

I just take that as indication of the fact that they weren't that good in the first place.  It's like a boxers record, you'll have x amount of people going 'oh, such and such was a good fighter, could've been the best in the world but he didn't train properly and didn't have the character and wasn't right mentally and had a rough upbringing will led to this, that and the other' but then it's like, OK, but if those things are the case then essentially he couldn't've been best in the world because he didn't have the requisite tools.  I mean lifes simple, what happens happens and thats what he call reality, the rest is just a load of cobblers more or less.

This thing people have of saying 'GnR could've been The Stones' is like, first of all a 'if my granny had bollocks' argument and second of all a MASSIVE measure of disrespect to the prodigious talent of The Stones.  Like you say, GnR had 3 proper albums right?  The Stoneses strongest matierial run from debut all the way to, depending on your perspective, Goats Head was how many fuckin' albums?  I dunno but it's into double figures.  So basically you're writing off seven plus albums of seriously staunch matierial like it was a fart in the wind by elevating a band like GnR onto their level.  You are kind of taking away what made The Stones great to try and force some parrallel between them and GnR but back here in the real world The Stones got the job done and GnR bottled it.  It's like saying 'x' fighter would've won 'x' fight if he'd've showed up', yeah, well showing up is an important part of the act really, isn't it?  Sorry for the constant boxing anaologies! 

I don't think GnR had the talent to be a Stones, simple as that.  And by a very very very long chalk too.  You can't trivialise like, 10 albums by equating GnR to them or bands of their ilk.  Even a band like Led Zeppelin, who i don't really like but i recognise that their music is quite rated in certain quarters, or a band like The Who for as long as they were all alive, you simply cannot put GnR on level pegging with bands like that or insinuate that they were some kind of titans of genre cuz the work simply isn't there.  i know you only said potential Towelie so pardon me, I'm speaking broadly here about an insinuation that you see quite frequently around here. 

To just presume, with no evidence that they would've produced good matierial after the three they released is a MASSIVE presumption, y'know, 4 or 5 or 7 or 10 more good albums would've come out of them, to just take that for granted, when in reality the creative process is such that oftentimes people struggle to produce even one, it's not this guaranteed thing.  Or even a likely thing.

Well, I think it's because those three albums were on that level, AFD, UYI1, UYI2 and even Lies to a lesser degree... I don't know if I agree with you that the talent just wasn't there. Those run of albums were and still are extraordinary, as good as anything in the Stones back catalogue and they were enough to realistically suggest that GNR at least at one time had it in them to be held in that regard alongside gigantic stadium acts like The Stones, Zeppelin etc. But I think 87-93 was a very different time to the 70s, rock had become very corporate, million-dollar budgets and lawyers led to over-inflated egos and GNR pretty much shot their load too early. They are the rock band equivalent of a premature ejaculation.

But I get what you're saying, what's done is done, history can't be rewritten and Axl, Slash and Izzy produced dick all from 96 onwards and faded into relative obscurity. Coulda woulda shoulda means jack shit, all you have is what really happened and that turned out to be just a lot of hot air.

But I do believe the potential was there and it was wasted and I think there's enough evidence in their small back catalogue to suggest that there was a potential for GNR to be so much more than what they were.

 

 

[Len Cnut]

In short, what was i was trying to say was talent is in the actual doing of it.  And really, the reasons usually given to equate the two are quite pale.  'look at You Ain't the First' and 'Used to Love Her', it shows they can do the Stonesy country thing.  Yeah, OK, Alright, where's their Miss You then?  Where are their Motowny tracks?  Where did they even approach showing the sort of inventiveness that will give you a Sympathy for the Devil, they're just vague pale comparisons that don't bear even surface level scrutiny. 

Really and truly, The Stones had a fuckload of musical range of which GnR never even showed an 8th of...and the few times they branched out into covering other bands they stayed well within home turf musically speaking...and they still made a bollocks of it.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Len B'stard

[SoulMonster]

And I think what GN'R has released -- reardless of how little that is -- still makes GN'R a much better band than Rolling Stones. It is all down to personal preferences.