Jump to content

RONIN

Members
  • Content count

    2,191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

RONIN last won the day on September 22 2018

RONIN had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,254 Excellent

3 Followers

About RONIN

  • Rank
    GOD

Profile Fields

  • Sex
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,911 profile views
  1. What's your unpopular GN'R opinion?

    Off the top of my head: 1. Guns N' Roses as a unit were peaking creatively (especially Axl and Slash) ~ 1994-2001. That's about 2 albums/tours we missed out on where we could have seen the band mature and deliver some incredible performances without a lot of the bullshit and drama that plagued the Illusion albums and tour. Yes, I think that period had all the potential in the world to surpass the Appetite/Illusion era from a creative standpoint. They quit on the verge of the band reaching greatness. 2. In hindsight, they broke up at the right time - they never diminished themselves like Metallica in the mid-90's. They left on their own terms and on the strongest possible note at the height of their fame. 3. Nu-Guns should never have existed. Looking at it now, that era has diminished their legacy. GnR should have regrouped in the late 90's or by 2006 at the latest had they wanted a shot at becoming a Stones tier band. 3. As weak as TSI is compared to the earlier albums, it's still pretty solid. The problem is with the cover songs they selected not being all that good of a fit. The album is produced well and as a band, they sound fantastic on the record. SFTD is another track where the production and sound excel. Clink and the band are in sync and I think it wouldn't be a stretch to think the '96 album would have been a gem had they gotten their shit together. One of the biggest missed opportunities in GnR fandom is that '96 album. 4. Slash is thoroughly average as a creative force without a major talent like Axl or Michael Jackson channeling his efforts. 5. Axl Rose had a short shelf-life as an artist and creative force. While I believe he had much potential, ultimately the man was unfocused and pissed away so much talent in Nu-Guns that one has to wonder if the emperor had no clothes by '94 and Slash/Duff knew it. 6. Slash has been lazy with his compositions post-Axl. I used to think he was a spontaneous, don't overthink it type musician like Izzy but I suspect there's also an element of laziness in developing his work further. Rough drafts need additional drafts to perfect and going by Slash's solo work, I don't think he really cares to dig in and take the time make something great. It's not efficient - Slash's work ethic and MO seems to be driven by efficiency and getting shit done. 7. Slash is a control freak. He never really wanted a strong creative partner on equal footing with him like Izzy. Going by his post-Guns work, he seems to greatly prefer hired guns that he can use as session players to achieve his vision. Basically, he operates in a similar manner to Axl Rose. 8. GnR has no creative juice left and nothing they ever do at this point will even come near Chinese Democracy, let alone AFD and UYI. There's a time and place for everything and this band has missed the boat. If Axl does not have finished 90's/00's vocals in the vault - don't even bother with new music. Let the legacy of the band stand as it is now and release the Chinese leftovers to streaming. 9. Duff is a smooth operator and possibly the most ruthless of the bunch in financial matters. He may be the most changed out of the entire band. I imagine he's largely driving the business engine of GnR. I also suspect he had a larger part to play in Izzy and Steven being out of the reunion than most think.
  2. 1994-2008 "It's been 14 years of silence, it's been 14 years of pain, it's been 14 years that are gone forever that I'll never have again." - Izzy Stradlin'
  3. But you have to ask yourself this - what exactly is the upside for them to release more music? The team of Axl, Izzy, Slash, and Duff left on such a high note with UYI 1 and 2 that anything they attempt to do next will diminish their legacy and mystique if it isn't as good or better than the past. Right now, these guys are frozen in time in the public/media consciousness - why break that spell with some half-baked album of vault left-overs and one of the major songwriters (Izzy) MIA? In the short term they could tour bigger venues with new music but if the album isn't well received, it might diminish the brand a bit over the long haul. I suspect they're in no rush to put anything out when they can continue to sit on their laurels and milk their legacy for all it's worth.
  4. This might be just me but from the interviews I've read from Slash over the past few years, I don't get the feeling that GnR is his band. He doesn't talk about Guns in the same way that he talks about SMKC. There is no sense of ownership from him like in the past when he referred to GnR as "my band". The subtext I get from his words seems to suggest more of a handsomely paid hired gun with some high level managerial/creative cache - he doesn't sound like a part-owner of that brand/band. Put another way, he acts like a 20-25% shareholder who sits on the board of GnR corp with Axl, the chairman, controlling 50-60% of the company. I think that's why people feel this is just another iteration of Nu Gnr - because Axl still appears to be fully driving the band's affairs while Sluff are simply along for the ride. Hence, the non-committal answers from Slash and Duff about the future of the band with some positive prognosticating because the three partners re-discovered how much time and money they pissed away with their foolish feud. All that being said, Marc Canter mentioned in 2016 that the partnership is active again so who the hell knows. Given Axl's MO though, it seems highly unlikely that the old partnership has been rejuvenated without some major amendments to it so that Axl can legally continue to run the band as he sees fit without interference. @Blackstar thoughts?
  5. This dude loathes the redhead and GnR. He goes too hard on Rose even for me
  6. Went into the Leaving Neverland doc at 70/30 in favor of MJ's innocence (I am/was a major MJ stan). Dangerous is one of my all-time favorite albums. After watching the documentary, interviews with Robson/Safechuck, and checking out what the pro-Jackson evidence was - I think there's almost no doubt for me at this point that MJ had a sinister side to him. I bought into his public persona and victimhood hook, line, and sinker - needless to say, this documentary was absolutely damning. You get the full context and scope of the allegations and how the grooming unfolded, and I'm sorry to say, it all seems very very plausible. In my mind, I think there's an 80/20 chance that he's guilty of child molestation (on the low end) and probably a 95% certainty that he was a pedophile. At best, he didn't act on his attraction to children and engaged in emotional abuse with them through grooming/dating. At worst? The repugnant human being in the LN doc. The question I had walking away from that doc was how much of MJ's abuse was pre-meditated (with full knowledge of what he was doing) and how much of it was him genuinely "loving" these kids and believing he wasn't hurting them but rather showing "love" with his actions. The latter would at least offer some (twisted) explanation for his behavior but the former makes him a calculating monstrous creature. LN seems to favor the premeditation explanation. Either way, if you apply Occam's Razor to this situation, well...yeah, there's a veritable dumpster fire on the guilty side. What are the chances of one guy being accused of molestation this many times, paying off up to 20+ kids for their silence (allegedly), spending 30+ consecutive nights in bed with a child as per the '93 suit (would love to hear an explanation for this)? Is it possible he was innocent and the man was misunderstood by the public and framed/taken advantage of by his accusers? Perhaps. Anything is possible I suppose. Is it likely? Of course not. At what point does one wake up and smell the coffee? As an aside, I actually think MJ was likely one of the earliest and most public pre-op transgender celebrities - it would explain the handsome albeit effeminate african american boy transitioning into the frightening pale skinned Eurasian woman by the end of his life. If MJ was straight/hetero as he claimed, why was he rarely photographed with women or rarely rumored to be dating anyone? You're telling me the most photographed and tabloid friendly celeb in the world had nary a story of a high profile romance/hook-up with a groupie aside from the obvious diversion tactic with Lisa Marie Presley? None of it adds up really even if you give MJ the benefit of the doubt. It's not one thing, it's everything. The only reason I'm not 100% convinced is because the facts have been muddied along the way - it's hard to say what is real and what has been embellished to drive an agenda. MJ had some very good lawyers and the prosecution had an overzealous lead investigator that may have tampered/overstated evidence in his zeal to convict MJ. What was the content of the books they found in '93 - much ado about nothing or was it basically child porn dressed up as art? Did the kid correctly identify MJ - the other side claims Jordan Chandler was wrong about him being circumcised. Were there photos of naked boys like Johnathan Spence? Was he fully undressed or was that exaggerrated by the prosecution? I've looked around and there doesn't seem to be any conclusive answers. Any of those things I brought up are smoking guns really if there's incontrovertible proof. Even if you doubt the sincerity of Robson and Safechuck (Robson appears to have a few skeletons in his closet) - the documentary reveals cracks in the "MJ is just a big kid" theory that his camp has put out there all these years. Objectively speaking, putting LN aside - 3 specific things made me go "Nah, I don't buy it anymore - we've been duped. He's guilty" 1. La Toya's interview with Howard Stern - I dismissed this given how most of the MJ fan community view her credibility. Unfortunately, even if you don't believe she's credible and think that her husband put her up to smearing MJ's reputation for money, how do you explain her mention of James Safechuck? That is just way too big of a coincidence. 2. MJ holding hands tightly with Gavin Arvizo as Gavin rests his head on MJ's shoulder. I didn't notice this before when I saw the "Living with MJ" doc originally. I couldn't believe how I missed that. WTF? When you were a kid, did you act like that with your buddy? They look like lovers, not friends. There's hundreds of pics of MJ holding the hands of some boy and walking around Neverland which now seem seriously disturbing if there's even a scintilla of truth to these allegations. Also, as a guy in his forties (as he was in 2003), wouldn't he have grown up by then mentally? If MJ was reliving his childhood in the 80's - wouldn't he have been a teen/adult mentally in the 90's? So why was he always hanging out with 10 year olds? I'm no psychiatrist but his obsession with children (boys) was always bizarre and quite frankly creepy. 3. The below picture. Who commissions an art piece like this as an adult asexual/heterosexual male? Also, I love the token black child in the picture - it's the furthest from him. https://nypost.com/2009/12/06/michael-jacksons-weird-art-revealed/ P.S. From Anthony Pellicano, MJ's one-time private investigator - take it for what it's worth (he's on tape publicly defending MJ in '93): Pellicano revealed why he allegedly dropped the King of Pop as a client, after being hired to investigate one of the families accusing the singer in the 2003 child molestation case. He claimed he told Jackson he would only work for him if he wasn't guilty. 'I said, "You don't have to worry about cops or lawyers. If I find out anything, I will f*** you over",' he said. 'I quit after I found out some truths. 'He did something far worse to young boys than molest them.' But the investigator did not elaborate on his sensational claim. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2023974/Anthony-Pellicano-claims-Michael-Jackson-did-far-worse-molest-young-boys.html
  7. There is a great metal sludge interview from ~2010-2011 with Alan Niven iirc where he refutes Axl's "woe is me, nobody cared for my well being" story - as per Niven, Axl and the entire band wanted to get on the road in '91 and do the tour. The album was supposed to be released prior to the start of the tour and was delayed for the umpteenth time by Axl. Niven felt they'd lose too much momentum if the tour was pushed back. Is there anyone who was around in '91 that thinks Niven made the wrong call with starting the tour before the album released? All that being said - Axl clearly was having mental health issues on that tour. But as Lenny pointed out, when exactly has this dude ever been ready for anything? He wasn't ready for the Chinese Democracy tour either and dumped Doug Goldstein for booking the tour "without his knowledge" (truly stretching credibility at this point). Let's keep in mind, this was after a 7 year lay-off for GnR. At some point you have to wonder if his problem was simply an inability to start or finish anything due to laziness/anxiety. Even Michael Jackson towards the end of his life had a better track record of finishing and releasing music.
  8. There is a lot of smoke. I don't know what to think of this situation - Michael was a very troubled and damaged man. I'd like to believe he was a man-child who did a lot of good in this world through his extensive philanthropy. If these allegations are true though, they ruin his legend for me. One thing that always confused me with MJ is that if he's a child molester - with his power, connections, and money - shouldn't he have a veritable laundry list of victims like Cosby? So far there have been 5 boys that have alleged abuse. So if MJ has been abusing since his early 20's, was he abusing ~2 boys a decade? Aren't pedophiles generally prolific abusers? MJ is guilty of making a lot of bad decisions (sleeping with boys far younger than him for one) but was he a child molester? Who knows. Is there a smoking gun here like there is with R Kelly? @EvanG - Re: the kid (Safechuck) who didn't testify in 2005 - Scott Ross talks about it briefly :
×