Excited About GNR future

[solstar]

Axl did say last year at the CE interview that he does want to put out more music with GNR when he was answering the question about his bucket list. Was he just full of it?

Talk about DTJ

(I want this guy back )

[craiggunslover]

Remember that interview before illusions came out where he said he wanted to bary appitte and didn't want to live in it's shadow the rest of his life oh irony  lol.. I hope they can offer us something new just for the hell of it

[AxlRoseCDII]

At the end of the day it's only music and one band, my life goes on without new music from GNR. I can't say I hold any real resentment towards Axl, while it is frustrating and is a waste of talent and potential, at the end of the day we are all adults with jobs and families and can't be too angry over one band. Of course it's fun to discuss but some people get too angry like others mentioned. The beautiful part about music is there's so many bands, artists, and genres out there that we never have to stick to one band in the first place.

[craiggunslover]

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

What is even more fucked up than lack of new music is the lack of live recordings/proshots. I mean, seriously give us a fucking break.

I'm sure they'll release at least a blu-ray of the tour once it's done..I hope they pick the best versions from over the last year  n a half for each song would be way cooler

[Bono]

For me it's less resentment and more of a "Really? Wow.  "  Really it comes off as anger sometimes but it's not really that. People have mistaken calling a  spade a spade for anger and negativity over the years. Guns N' Roses as an organization has in fact disrespected, disregarded and blatantly mislead loyal fans for years. I would understand people who do hold resentment, especially those who defended and worship the ground Axl walked on no matter what but for me it's more like I just think they're pathetic. Music gods but just really pathetic when it comes to everything else. I don't know of any fanbase other than GnR fans that have been treated with..... what seems like contempt almost. I guess I just shake my head. They make every little thing seem impossible yet other bands pull off all the time. Even the simplest of things. 

[jmapelian]

Just saw this, I guess time will tell how true it is:

 

Guns N' Roses have been working on new songs during the sound passage according to the organizers. May have a surprise to hear tomorrow (today 06/09/17 El Paso, Texas)

- Dave Acosta

[double talkin jive mfkr]

this NITL finishes after LA and as Axl said previous to the reunion that he will do this and hang em up for good - i believe that even though he denied it - its kind of a shame because i think the absence of izzy is what is really eating at him per say 

 

 

[RONIN]

17 hours ago, Bono said:

For me it's less resentment and more of a "Really? Wow.  "  Really it comes off as anger sometimes but it's not really that. People have mistaken calling a  spade a spade for anger and negativity over the years. Guns N' Roses as an organization has in fact disrespected, disregarded and blatantly mislead loyal fans for years. I would understand people who do hold resentment, especially those who defended and worship the ground Axl walked on no matter what but for me it's more like I just think they're pathetic. Music gods but just really pathetic when it comes to everything else. I don't know of any fanbase other than GnR fans that have been treated with..... what seems like contempt almost. I guess I just shake my head. They make every little thing seem impossible yet other bands pull off all the time. Even the simplest of things. 

Exactly. Couldn't have said it any better.

Whatever future this band had was pissed away between 1994-2006 when they should have been ruling the world and releasing new music. But they didn't do shit. As usual.  And Metallica took their place as the preeminent rock band of America. Metallica did everything these clowns should have done the last 20 years and stole their thunder. U2 and Metallica have the stature that GnR should have had. 

At this point, it's just too little - too late. There is no mystique left with their silence. No one really cares anymore about the future or potential of this band aside from forum diehards and even amongst us, most gave up in 2006. The band's apathy towards the fans directly mirrors the indifference the public feels towards new music from this band. They are not relevant. Plain and simple. To be relevant, you need to release new music and this band cannot and will not do that. So naturally, the band's legacy is and will always be '87-93 and the people turning out for this tour are invested solely in that era of GnR. Nothing more, nothing less. Those glorious years are reflected in the ticket sales. But even nostalgia has a finite timeline and diminishing returns have already started to reflect in show sales.

They will never be what they should have been. The sliver of a chance they had to redefine their legacy and final chapter has also been tarnished with the exclusion of Izzy which has effectively killed any real hope of a worthy followup to the Illusion albums.  But hey - let's all celebrate the umpteenth show w/ Axl singing AFD songs, the new random cover songs, and Melissa's synth and vocals on "Better". Nothing like a celebration of mediocrity to make everyone feel better about the current sorry state of affairs. God forbid calling a spade a spade.

Is NITL better than the silence of the late 90's/early 2000's?  No.

Why?  At least there was hope then that GnR would come back strong and deliver the goods. They still had creative potential and relevance.  They were not yet a tired legacy act like the NITL band. Maybe Axl would release a magnum opus with Buckethead and then wake up and reunite with the AFD lineup in the early 2000's for one final stab at relevance with a world conquering album and tour. And if that had happened, all would have been forgiven. But of course, that didn't happen. 

Is NITL better than the travesty of post-2006 GnR? Sure. They are now a competent legacy act instead of an incompetent one. Hardly a glowing endorsement. They still have no creative future.  We're now approaching the end of the tour and there's nary a word about new music. No Izzy either. Can't say I'm surprised. History repeating itself. This is basically a redux of the Gilby era touring band.

I hear AC/DC might get a new album featuring Axl though. 

[downzy]

I'm not sure point to Metallica or U2 with respect to new music since the early to mid 90s is the best proof that those bands did it better than GNR.  While it's exciting to get new music from your favourite band, there's almost nothing in Metallica or U2's discography since the mid 90s that I'd consider comparable to their earlier material.  For me, it's mostly forgettable.  

Not saying that had Axl released new albums at the same rate that they would be any good, but ask yourself how many people going to see Metallica or U2 are there for their post 1991 material?  

[Bono]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

I'm not sure point to Metallica or U2 with respect to new music since the early to mid 90s is the best proof that those bands did it better than GNR.  While it's exciting to get new music from your favourite band, there's almost nothing in Metallica or U2's discography since the mid 90s that I'd consider comparable to their earlier material.  For me, it's mostly forgettable.  

Not saying that had Axl released new albums at the same rate that they would be any good, but ask yourself how many people going to see Metallica or U2 are there for their post 1991 material?  

That is an absolute nonsense post. Pure garbage. Who gives a flying fuck why people are going to the shows? Fact is fans are going to the shows but I don't know any fan who prefers ZERO albums as opposed to 5, 6 or 7 or even 1. Only on a  GnR board would you read such crap. Such a desperate attempt to prop GnR up by knocking other bands down. If Guns N Roses fans could still have AFD, LIES, and the Illusions plus 7 more GnR albums how many do you think would say "nah thanks I'm good. I don't want them risking turning out like U2 or Metallica by releasing forgettable music. What if I don't like the new material?" .  Well then you don't like it but at least there was the opportunity to like it. It's like asking a girl out on a date. You might get shot down but if you don't ask she can never say yes.

As for U2 the songs from Songs of Innocence were incredibly well received by concert goers on U2's last tour. Fans were literally singing along to the newest songs in the catalogue on a nightly basis. I experienced it in Vancouver, Montreal and London. It probably had a lot to do with the method of release which everyone bitched irrationally about but in the end it was a smart move and it resulted in 80 million downloads not to mention countless other listens from people who may not have ever listened to or even heard of U2.  So don't sit there and try to perpetuate this BS that nobody goes to a U2 show to hear new songs. It's bullshit. Of course most wanna hear the hits but to act like nobody is going to a U2 show to hear music from the most recent album is stupid. As for Metallica the new album is kickass so I'm pretty sure there are those who are attending shows who hope to hear newer songs along with the classics. I've always been a casual Metallica fan but I thought the new album was kickass so what did I do? I bought a  ticket to one of their shows for the first time ever. Trust me releasing new albums is not the waste of time GnR fans like to pretend it is just so they can justify in their own minds the complete incompetence GnR has when it comes to such a thing. 

Fact is U2 and Metallica have done it much better post 1991 than GnR. To argue that is asinine. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by Bono

[downzy]

11 hours ago, Bono said:

That is an absolute nonsense post. Pure garbage. Who gives a flying fuck why people are going to the shows? Fact is fans are going to the shows but I don't know any fan who prefers ZERO albums as opposed to 5, 6 or 7 or even 1. Only on a  GnR board would you read such crap. Such a desperate attempt to prop GnR up by knocking other bands down. If Guns N Roses fans could still have AFD, LIES, and the Illusions plus 7 more GnR albums how many do you think would say "nah thanks I'm good. I don't want them risking turning out like U2 or Metallica by releasing forgettable music. What if I don't like the new material?" .  Well then you don't like it but at least there was the opportunity to like it. It's like asking a girl out on a date. You might get shot down but if you don't ask she can never say yes.

As for U2 the songs from Songs of Innocence were incredibly well received by concert goers on U2's last tour. Fans were literally singing along to the newest songs in the catalogue on a nightly basis. I experienced it in Vancouver, Montreal and London. It probably had a lot to do with the method of release which everyone bitched irrationally about but in the end it was a smart move and it resulted in 80 million downloads not to mention countless other listens from people who may not have ever listened to or even heard of U2.  So don't sit there and try to perpetuate this BS that nobody goes to a U2 show to hear new songs. It's bullshit. Of course most wanna hear the hits but to act like nobody is going to a U2 show to hear music from the most recent album is stupid. As for Metallica the new album is kickass so I'm pretty sure there are those who are attending shows who hope to hear newer songs along with the classics. I've always been a casual Metallica fan but I thought the new album was kickass so what did I do? I bought a  ticket to one of their shows for the first time ever. Trust me releasing new albums is not the waste of time GnR fans like to pretend it is just so they can justify in their own minds the complete incompetence GnR has when it comes to such a thing. 

Fact is U2 and Metallica have done it much better post 1991 than GnR. To argue that is asinine. 

Really?  You think most people are heading to a U2 concert to hear Get On Your Boots?  Do you think 90 percent of those who attend a U2 concert could name a song released after Achtung Baby (other than, maybe, Beautiful Day)?  When bands perform in stadiums, they're playing largely to casual fans, which make up 75-90 percent of attendance.  I'm a U2 fan but I couldn't name one song from their last album (and I believed I listened to it two or three times before giving up on it).  

The Rolling Stones haven't put out a decent album since 1985.  Billy Joel stopped producing new material in 1993.  Both artists continue to sell out arenas and stadiums.  

I'm not saying that new music is a bad thing, but the argument that Metallica and U2 "took up the mantle" because they produced new material whereas GNR has largely not is absurd.  U2 and Metallica sellout stadiums for the same reason GNR sells out stadiums.  Do you honestly think a subpar to average GNR album would allow the band to add additional nights in NYC or Paris?  Please.

But maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe in 17 years U2 will do a Songs of Innocence 20th anniversary tour...  LOL.

[RONIN]

35 minutes ago, downzy said:

I'm not sure point to Metallica or U2 with respect to new music since the early to mid 90s is the best proof that those bands did it better than GNR.  While it's exciting to get new music from your favourite band, there's almost nothing in Metallica or U2's discography since the mid 90s that I'd consider comparable to their earlier material.  For me, it's mostly forgettable.  

Not saying that had Axl released new albums at the same rate that they would be any good, but ask yourself how many people going to see Metallica or U2 are there for their post 1991 material?  

You're missing the point. Mostly forgettable? Perhaps - opinions vary. Many would say the same of Chinese Democracy. Bono and Hetfield certainly have more artistic credibility than Axl objectively speaking since they actually release music unlike the redhead. Whether the new music is good/bad - it certainly hasn't affected their artistic reputation as negatively as Axl's minuscule ouevre. If anything, their consistency with releasing albums has burnished their reputation as musicians.

When the dust settles, U2 and Metallica will be looked at as one of the great rock bands in history in the same elite tier as bands like Aerosmith, AC/DC, the Stones, etc. GnR on the other hand won't even have the same stature as a band like The Doors but rather more like an 80's Sex Pistols. They continue to be a mega band similar to Nirvana solely due to the strength of two albums. Neither of those bands have the discography to justify the legacy of a U2 or Metallica. New music is entirely the reason for that. And to argue otherwise would just be silly really. That was essentially the crux of my post. And let's be honest here, aside from the reunion tour pulling in massive numbers based purely on nostalgia for their legendary prime - are you really saying that reunited GnR can pull in U2 or Metallica numbers on a future tour without a new album? That's extremely optimistic to put it lightly. GnR will be an arena band in a month or two. U2 and Metallica will draw in bigger audiences on future tours because they are bigger bands. They are bigger bands because they have been active longer than GnR and have released more commercially well received music than GnR. They are and will always be more relevant. It's really that simple. To most, GnR was done in '93. Chinese Democracy doesn't even register a blip on the radar since it was irrelevant and a commercial failure upon release unlike Death Magnetic. Nobody knows about Chinese Democracy aside from die hards.

I'm all for "less is more" and putting out albums on a less than frequent basis to maintain artistic integrity. Metallica took 8 years to follow up Death Magnetic. Nobody diminishes them for that. I never wanted to see GnR turn into AC/DC as Slash wanted and just toss out generic albums every 18 months. But the time it takes this band to release anything is abysmal.  And that's really on Axl and his failure as a leader and frontman. He damaged the band's artistic integrity and financial future post-Illusions and turned the biggest band in the world into a band that eventually struggled to fill arenas. Even some club shows towards the end had underwhelming sales iirc. That's just sad. By 2014, the band literally had nothing left in it's coffers to even pay their synth guy - a band that sold 100 million albums with one of the greatest frontmen in history couldn't release a follow-up album because the record label no longer had faith in Axl/GnR as a viable brand, artistically or commercially. How does one take such a powerful and legendary brand and dismantle it to such a sorry state?

Hetfield and Bono managed their respective bands a hell of a lot better and it made them very rich men and their fanbase for the most part, couldn't be happier with the fan service. Win/win situation there. Should we compare Axl to contemporaries like Chris Cornell and Dave Grohl who both went solo after their bands fell apart? Those two guys had/have a ton more artistic credibility than Axl in the eyes of fans and critics. In the time Axl spent hiding out with his nanny, Grohl became one of the richest and most influential guys in rock by having the balls to start his own band away from Nirvana. Imagine that. A guy that doesn't have to rely on past glories to be successful. Who will be taken more seriously by critics and fans, him or Axl? The latter couldn't even keep a proven legendary band afloat let alone establish himself as a successful solo artist.

What has Axl gained from not releasing albums as opposed to keeping GnR a functional entity post-Illusions w/ the original lineup? Not a damn thing. In the mid 90's, Axl was at the helm of a financial behemoth with GnR and had the largest budget ever given to an artist in rock history with the record label willing to literally do anything for him. What did he do with it? Not a damn thing. GnR's discography is seen as incomplete and woefully tiny (albeit relatively strong). He's probably lost hundreds of millions in income from breaking up the band and not touring through the mid 90's and early 2000's (the 2002 tour doesn't count because it was an unmitigated disaster). The fan attrition from GnR is probably as legendary as Axl's appetite for cake. However you want to slice it, this is a trainwreck of a band mate.

P.S. Just compare the U2 and Metallica websites to the piss poor one GnR has. Hell, compare the GnR site even to Slash's website. It speaks VOLUMES about those bands and how they're run. It speaks volumes about how they see their fans. GnR are making hundreds of millions on their tour and they can't even be bothered to communicate properly with their fans or even maintain their fan club properly - let alone update their website with anything more than barebones content.

[downzy]

10 minutes ago, RONIN said:

You're missing the point. Mostly forgettable? Perhaps - opinions vary. Many would say the same of Chinese Democracy. Bono and Hetfield certainly have more artistic credibility than Axl objectively speaking since they actually release music unlike the redhead. Whether the new music is good/bad - it certainly hasn't affected their artistic reputation as negatively as Axl's minuscule ouevre. If anything, their consistency with releasing albums has burnished their reputation as musicians.

Didn't read your entire post because you're missing my point.  It's not a matter of quantity.  Quantity of material doesn't grant relevance or artistic credibility.  Admiration, credibility, and reverence comes from producing quality.  The material from AFD, Lies, and UYI was great, which allows GNR to sell out stadiums.  I'm not saying it's not a shame that GNR didn't produce more material, but if it didn't measure up to its previous efforts, it's not going to do much to the band's stature in the music world.  

As I stated before, bands like the Rolling Stones, U2, Metallica and artists like Elton John and Billy Joel aren't considered the giants of music because of anything they've produced in the last 20 years.  Their legendary status was burnished by their peak work.  I don't discount that had GNR produce a few more great albums over the last 20 years they would be considered an even greater musical act than they are today.  But I have a hard time believing that anything produced by Metallica or U2 since the mid 90s has done anything to enhance their stature in the music world.  Unless they, along with any other iconic act, can produce music that resonates with both hardcore and casual fans alike than it's not going to do much for their careers.  

But again, this is just my opinion.  Maybe I'm wrong and bands like the Rolling Stones or U2 are winning over new fans or further cementing their iconic status by releasing new subpar or lacklustre material.  I just don't see much evidence of that.  

[RONIN]

1 hour ago, Bono said:

That is an absolute nonsense post. Pure garbage. Who gives a flying fuck why people are going to the shows? Fact is fans are going to the shows but I don't know any fan who prefers ZERO albums as opposed to 5, 6 or 7 or even 1. Only on a  GnR board would you read such crap. Such a desperate attempt to prop GnR up by knocking other bands down. If Guns N Roses fans could still have AFD, LIES, and the Illusions plus 7 more GnR albums how many do you think would say "nah thanks I'm good. I don't want them risking turning out like U2 or Metallica by releasing forgettable music. What if I don't like the new material?" .  Well then you don't like it but at least there was the opportunity to like it. It's like asking a girl out on a date. You might get shot down but if you don't ask she can never say yes.
 

Agreed. I don't understand why this is such an alien concept. There is also the fact that by releasing albums, many of which were commercially successful, they've managed to stay relevant and bring in a whole new fanbase. Most of the people I was sitting with at my stadium show in san diego were aging mullet heads. Maybe I'm totally off but I would bet dollars to donuts that Metallica and U2 have a younger fanbase than GnR by virtue of them staying active for so long. 

 

Quote

As for U2 the songs from Songs of Innocence were incredibly well received by concert goers on U2's last tour. Fans were literally singing along to the newest songs in the catalogue on a nightly basis. I experienced it in Vancouver, Montreal and London. It probably had a lot to do with the method of release which everyone bitched irrationally about but in the end it was a smart move and it resulted in 80 million downloads not to mention countless other listens from people who may not have ever listened to or even heard of U2.  So don't sit there and try to perpetuate this BS that nobody goes to a U2 show to hear new songs. It's bullshit. Of course most wanna hear the hits but to act like nobody is going to a U2 show to hear music from the most recent album is stupid. As for Metallica the new album is kickass so I'm pretty sure there are those who are attending shows who hope to hear newer songs along with the classics. I've always been a casual Metallica fan but I thought the new album was kickass so what did I do? I bought a  ticket to one of their shows for the first time ever. Trust me releasing new albums is not the waste of time GnR fans like to pretend it is just so they can justify in their own minds the complete incompetence GnR has when it comes to such a thing. 

Fact is U2 and Metallica have done it much better post 1991 than GnR. To argue that is asinine. 

Metallica and U2 are still relevant still. GnR is a stale band that plays nothing but 30 year old songs and covers night after night. The fan interest in the former two bands is driven by them being a viable creative force still. The interest in the latter is driven purely by nostalgia. That's the difference.

 

33 minutes ago, downzy said:

Really?  You think most people are heading to a U2 concert to hear Get On Your Boots?  Do you think 90 percent of those who attend a U2 concert could name a song released after Achtung Baby (other than, maybe, Beautiful Day)?  When bands perform in stadiums, they're playing largely to casual fans, which make up 75-90 percent of attendance.  I'm a U2 fan but I couldn't name one song from their last album (and I believed I listened to it two or three times before giving up on it).  

The Rolling Stones haven't put out a decent album since 1985.  Billy Joel stopped producing new material in 1993.  Both artists continue to sell out arenas and stadiums.  

I'm not saying that new music is a bad thing, but the argument that Metallica and U2 "took up the mantle" because they produced new material whereas GNR has large not is absurd.  U2 and Metallica sellout stadiums for the same reason GNR sells out stadiums.  Do you honestly think a subpar to average GNR album would allow the band to add additional nights in NYC or Paris?  Please.

U2 put out more good albums than GnR. Metallica as well. That's basically it. That makes the more popular, relevant, and commercially successful than GnR ever will be. Sure, the new albums are nowhere near as good as their prime era material. But here's the thing - their prime lasted a lot longer than GnR's and they have more to show for it. And that's what will be evaluated at the end of the day.

[downzy]

20 minutes ago, RONIN said:

Metallica and U2 are still relevant still. GnR is a stale band that plays nothing but 30 year old songs and covers night after night. The fan interest in the former two bands is driven by them being a viable creative force still. The interest in the latter is driven purely by nostalgia. That's the difference.

U2 put out more good albums than GnR. Metallica as well. That's basically it. That makes the more popular, relevant, and commercially successful than GnR ever will be. Sure, the new albums are nowhere near as good as their prime era material. But here's the thing - their prime lasted a lot longer than GnR's and they have more to show for it. And that's what will be evaluated at the end of the day.

You're going to have to provide what you mean by "relevant."  For me, an artist who is relevant is one that produces music that expands and increases its fanbase but also depend its admiration amongst said fans.  I think a case could be made that Metallica is still somewhat relevant since their last album debuted at number one.  But it's likely only going to sell just north of 1 million copies, which means it's largely being consumed by people who are already fans.  Is Hardwired going to hold up against Master of Puppets, Justice for All, and the Black Album?  Maybe, but something tells me I doubt it.  Moreover, are people going to Metallica largely because of their latest album?  Again, i think you'd have a hard time proving that to be true (actually, my wife and I saw Metallica in July and loved it, but neither of us wanted to hear anything post Loaded).  Likewise, i don't see how anyone could reasonably argue that U2 has been relevant for a very long time.  Few people cared or wanted their last album, even if it was pushed upon them and cost them nothing (hence the backlash).  

I'm not arguing which band has put out more good albums, but whether the stream of material produced since each band's halcyon years have done anything for their stature.  Elton John has released a countless number of albums in the last 30 years and few of them have been any good.  None of his new material in the last 25+ years has been a factor in putting people in seats at his concerts.  Again, it's not about quantity.  It's about the quality of material.  

GNR may very well have produced two or three great albums over the last 25 years.  But they didn't.  But neither did Metallica, U2, Elton John, Billy Joel, the Rolling Stones.  Their statures were cemented by their work that is considered great.  It's that stature and the multiple hits that have allowed those bands and acts to sell out stadiums.  If GNR wants to put out another album that's great.  But unless the material itself is great, it's going to do nothing to drive people to see them.  Personally, I'm less inclined to see an act if they've put out a shitty new album since it will reduce the number of hits I hear.  People only have time these days for what's great.  

[RONIN]

17 minutes ago, downzy said:

Didn't read your entire post because you're missing my point.  It's not a matter of quantity.  Quantity of material doesn't grant relevance or artistic credibility.  Admiration, credibility, and reverence comes from producing quality.  The material from AFD, Lies, and UYI was great, which allows GNR to sell out stadiums.  I'm not saying it's not a shame that GNR didn't produce more material, but if it didn't measure up to its previous efforts, it's not going to do much to the band's stature in the music world.  

I get your point. Diesel Daisy has addressed this before many times. Lies and UYI have a mixed reception outside of the hardcore fanbase despite being legendary albums. UYI are my favorite GnR albums but those albums are qualitatively all over the map. Perhaps if GnR had followed up Appetite with a release as well received then your theory would have merit regarding quality over quantity. But they didn't. Illusions may have sold a lot initially but it was outsold by Metallica, Nirvana and Pearl Jam. The latter offerings were far more relevant and critically well received than UYI. Outside of hardcore fans, UYI is not seen as a great body of work. Rather a muddled release with many outstanding songs. It's a 3.5 star album with some 5 star songs. 

GnR started selling out stadiums now. They were struggling to fill arenas just a few years prior. They are now an arena band once the Texas shows wrap up. 

 

Quote

As I stated before, bands like the Rolling Stones, U2, Metallica and artists like Elton John and Billy Joel aren't considered the giants of music because of anything they've produced in the last 20 years.  Their legendary status was burnished by their peak work.  I don't discount that had GNR produce a few more great albums over the last 20 years they would be considered an even greater musical act than they are today.  But I have a hard time believing that anything produced by Metallica or U2 since the mid 90s has done anything to enhance their stature in the music world.  Unless they, along with any other iconic act, can produce music that resonates with both hardcore and casual fans alike than it's not going to do much for their careers.  

Maybe, maybe not. I think you might be underrating those artists' post prime work to make your point but here's what new albums from U2 and Metallica did do though: keep them in the public eye. Death Magnetic was well received critically and commercially. If that isn't an indicator for relevancy, I don't know what is. They were still mega bands in the public eye even if those new releases were not setting the world on fire like their prior work. Because at the end of the day, their oeuvres will be looked at as a cohesive body of work rather than simply one or two standout selections. Their music will be judged as a whole rather than the sum of its parts.

The reverse is true with GnR since they are viewed by most as a one album band with a relatively strong albeit mixed followup with the Illusions. Unfortunately, that's just not good enough to put them in the league of U2 and Metallica in the eyes of fans or critics and that's essentially what I was stating in my initial post. It's really a case where their small discography works against them. The proof of this can be seen with Axl struggling to fill arenas with GnR for the last decade while U2 and Metallica crush on their tours. New music enabled those bands to do that by maintaining their fanbase and potentially cultivating a new one. Axl and GnR basically let their fanbase ebb away by giving them nothing. Yeah, GnR put out a few great albums and their track record is arguably stronger than Metallica. But then they offered nothing. And so those casual GnR fans went over to Metallica to quench their thirst for new music even if the new music wasn't at the level of Metallica's initial offerings. Nothing you're saying is disproving what I said initially that Metallica supplanted GnR's place on the rock throne. The place that GnR should have in rock history was abdicated to Metallica because Axl refused to release new music. The strength of Appetite and Illusions has not changed the narrative of how history views the events of the last 25 years. If what you're saying were true, then technically Metallica should be a less popular band than GnR since GnR was a bigger band in 92 and 93. That just isn't the case though. The only explanations? New music. Bigger oeuvre. Better fan service. Staying active has its perks.

Quote

But again, this is just my opinion.  Maybe I'm wrong and bands like the Rolling Stones or U2 are winning over new fans or further cementing their iconic status by releasing new subpar or lacklustre material.  I just don't see much evidence of that.  

Answered this above. The evidence can be seen in touring ticket sales. U2 and Metallica crushed GnR from 2002-2014.

[RONIN]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

You're going to have to provide what you mean by "relevant."  For me, an artist who is relevant is one that produces music that expands and increases its fanbase but also depend its admiration amongst said fans.  I think a case could be made that Metallica is still somewhat relevant since their last album debuted at number one.  But it's likely only going to sell just north of 1 million copies, which means it's largely being consumed by people who are already fans.  Is Hardwired going to hold up against Master of Puppets, Justice for All, and the Black Album?  Maybe, but something tells me I doubt it.  Moreover, are people going to Metallica largely because of their latest album?  Again, i think you'd have a hard time proving that to be true (actually, my wife and I saw Metallica in July and loved it, but neither of us wanted to hear anything post Loaded).  Likewise, i don't see how anyone could reasonably argue that U2 has been relevant for a very long time.  Few people cared or wanted their last album, even if it was pushed upon them and cost them nothing (hence the backlash).  

Your definition is the same as mine but a band releasing new music will generally always be more relevant than a band releasing no music. I don't know how relevant Hardwired is or isn't, but Death Magnetic was a relevant album - certainly far more relevant than Chinese Democracy ended up being. Maybe U2 is or isn't relevant - I don't know. Their fans seem a lot happier than our fans. Is that a fair statement to make? They don't even need to do anything but coast at this point but at least those guys are acting like musicians and putting stuff out there.

My favorite film director is Michael Mann and though his current work comes nowhere close to "Heat" and "Collateral", I still make a point of checking it out. I appreciate that he continues to stay active even if the quality has slid. In this case, something is better than nothing  as long as it isn't a complete embarrassment and travesty. More of a good thing is always good even if it doesn't taste as good as it used to.

Subjective opinions of their music aside - these bands have a stature that have surpassed GnR and that was built on the music they released in the mid to late 90's and arguably early 00's. GnR sat this period out and never recovered. GnR's problem is fan attrition. Regardless of what you think about Metallica's new music, they throw a few bones to their fans. GnR doesn't. That indifference from GnR translates into indifference from fans. These are the fans that sat out Axl's much hyped 2002 comeback shows and largely ignored New GnR. New Guns was a bankrupt band! Metallica and U2 on the other hand were money making juggernauts in 2014. Aside from being managed better, they engaged their fans with new content and maintained their interest. Forget new fans, how about just maintaining your old fans? GnR couldn't even do that. New music would have tided many of us over. Chinese Democracy is nowhere near Illusions but most of us are still grateful even that one saw the light of day. 

Look, I'm actually somewhat in agreement with you. I would rather have a few strong releases than a ton of middling generic stuff to clutter up the discography. But GnR released nothing  post Illusions aside from a half baked Chinese Democracy with a band of pretenders. So they lose this argument by default when compared to their contemporaries who put out work arguably as strong if not stronger than Chinese Democracy. 

 

Quote

I'm not arguing which band has put out more good albums, but whether the stream of material produced since each band's halcyon years have done anything for their stature.  Elton John has released a countless number of albums in the last 30 years and few of them have been any good.  None of his new material in the last 25+ years has been a factor in putting people in seats at his concerts.  Again, it's not about quantity.  It's about the quality of material.  

I think it absolutely contributes to their stature if the work is relatively well received and isn't perceived as a disappointment or an embarrassment to the legacy of the band. It certainly doesn't hurt them. Like you said, the prime era material is weighted more heavily in the grand scheme of things. Staying active and mainstream by releasing new music has other perks like enabling the brand to become more financially lucrative and keep a certain degree of relevancy in pop culture. More fans = more money. If anything, the lack of new music prevented GnR from enjoying continued mainstream exposure and the financial windfall that comes with it. 

If you doubt the power of new content, take a look at the piss poor Star Wars prequels. They minted a brand new fanbase of youngsters who went with their parents to see the movies. Even if the kids grew up to loathe the prequels and appreciate the original Star Wars trilogy, the fact remains that had the movies not been made, they may not have become fans. The prequels were just a gateway drug to original trilogy. Prior to the prequels being released, Lucas kept those fans satiated by keeping the brand active and releasing Star Wars content in the form of comic books, toys, animated films, etc which helped maintain the fanbase from the 80's till the release of the prequels. You could say the prequels damaged the legacy of Star Wars and perhaps damaged interest in the brand - that doesn't seem to be the case though based on how well the last Star Wars movie did. If anything, the prequels kept the Star Wars juggernaut going from strength to strength. Perceived content quality issues didn't really slow down such an established brand. 

New music from a band essentially serves the same function - it maintains interest. There is an argument to be made (especially now) that GnR was such a gargantuan band in the mid 90's that they could have released just about anything and they would still have largely maintained most of their 90's stature like Metallica instead of fading away and being resurrected as a mega band in 2016.

 

Quote

GNR may very well have produced two or three great albums over the last 25 years.  But they didn't.  But neither did Metallica, U2, Elton John, Billy Joel, the Rolling Stones.  Their statures were cemented by their work that is considered great.  It's that stature and the multiple hits that have allowed those bands and acts to sell out stadiums.  If GNR wants to put out another album that's great.  But unless the material itself is great, it's going to do nothing to drive people to see them.  

Look, we'll just have to agree to disagree but I see where you're coming from. However, the general public and critics/tastemakers who write the legacy of these bands don't really see it as you do. They're looking for longevity. Longevity means a prolific career with plenty of musical output. If that's not there, then they look for how strong the individual albums are and GNR only has Appetite which is uniformly strong. So again, they're viewed as a one album band with some great singles on UYI like November Rain.

GnR does not put out new work purely out of indifference not because of any craftsmanship issues being considered. 

Quote

 

Personally, I'm less inclined to see an act if they've put out a shitty new album since it will reduce the number of hits I hear.  People only have time these days for what's great.  

 

Fair enough, I'm with you there. I would take a pretty good album or even a good-ish album over nothing though. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by RONIN

[Bono]

3 hours ago, downzy said:

Didn't read your entire post because you're missing my point.  It's not a matter of quantity.  Quantity of material doesn't grant relevance or artistic credibility.  Admiration, credibility, and reverence comes from producing quality.  The material from AFD, Lies, and UYI was great, which allows GNR to sell out stadiums.  I'm not saying it's not a shame that GNR didn't produce more material, but if it didn't measure up to its previous efforts, it's not going to do much to the band's stature in the music world.  

As I stated before, bands like the Rolling Stones, U2, Metallica and artists like Elton John and Billy Joel aren't considered the giants of music because of anything they've produced in the last 20 years.  Their legendary status was burnished by their peak work.  I don't discount that had GNR produce a few more great albums over the last 20 years they would be considered an even greater musical act than they are today.  But I have a hard time believing that anything produced by Metallica or U2 since the mid 90s has done anything to enhance their stature in the music world.  Unless they, along with any other iconic act, can produce music that resonates with both hardcore and casual fans alike than it's not going to do much for their careers.  

But again, this is just my opinion.  Maybe I'm wrong and bands like the Rolling Stones or U2 are winning over new fans or further cementing their iconic status by releasing new subpar or lacklustre material.  I just don't see much evidence of that.  

You're completely wrong. U2 looked to be at a crossroads after Pop. The album wasn't received well at the time, the tour struggled at times, Bono had serious throat issues, but they reinvigorated their career with All That You Can't Leave Behind. They released songs like Beautiful Day, Elevation and Walk On. Elevation and Beautiful Day get some of the best reactions in their live shows. Vertigo introduced them to a whole new generation and it also gets one of the best reactions live. Stop with this nonsense that U2 hasn't done anything musically to elevate their status since 1991. This whole notion that they've released nothing but subpar, lackluster material since 1991 also makes you sound delusional. You can think that but if everything they've released was as you say they'd be completely washed up. U2 release albums, do promotion, hell they're even performing on Jimmy Fallon tonight. Yet you sit there and act like the 6 studio albums they've released since 1991 and the forthcoming album have done and will do NOTHING to contribute to building them into what they are now? Of course what they did in the past is the major reason they became icons but so fucking what? Why does that matter to you? At least they don't tour off the back of nostalgia and at least they feature new material heavily each time they tour in support of an album.  
Again who gives a shit why people are turning up to their shows. Fact is being a U2 fan is way more fun and fulfilling than being a GnR fan. I know, I'm both.  

And newsflash, U2 has released a much higher quantity of music than GnR has since 1991 and also much higher quality.  Unless of course you're actually gonna sit there and try to argue that in the grand scheme of things CD trumps everything U2 has done since 1991 in terms of artistic integrity, building reverence, admiration and credibility among casuals and hardcores, and adding to the legacy. Argue that GnR with one fucking album since 1991 has done that better than U2(or Metallica) and I'll roll my eyes and move along. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by Bono

[Bono]

3 hours ago, downzy said:

Really?  You think most people are heading to a U2 concert to hear Get On Your Boots?  Do you think 90 percent of those who attend a U2 concert could name a song released after Achtung Baby (other than, maybe, Beautiful Day)?  When bands perform in stadiums, they're playing largely to casual fans, which make up 75-90 percent of attendance.  I'm a U2 fan but I couldn't name one song from their last album (and I believed I listened to it two or three times before giving up on it).  

The Rolling Stones haven't put out a decent album since 1985.  Billy Joel stopped producing new material in 1993.  Both artists continue to sell out arenas and stadiums.  

I'm not saying that new music is a bad thing, but the argument that Metallica and U2 "took up the mantle" because they produced new material whereas GNR has large not is absurd.  U2 and Metallica sellout stadiums for the same reason GNR sells out stadiums.  Do you honestly think a subpar to average GNR album would allow the band to add additional nights in NYC or Paris?  Please.

But maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe in 17 years U2 will do a Songs of Innocence 20th anniversary tour...  LOL.

Unreal.  Trust me when I say this, most people at the U2 shows know the material new and old. You're arguing a losing argument here dude. U2's new albums are much more well known by the average U2 concert goer than CD is to the average GnR concert goer. Hate all you want. GnR's career since 1991 has been a fucking joke. The fact you're even remotely suggesting 2 and Metallica haven't gone about business better is insane.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Bono

[allwaystired]

I'm not much of a U2 fan, but come on- you can't really criticize them for not try to move forward, constantly. The reason they've managed to still be as popular as ever is simply that they've done this. No way in hell would they they still be filling stadiums across the world if they were playing the same setlist made up of 80s material over and over. 

Ok there might be an element of 'box tickers' at the shows, there to hear the hits, but they go and see the band once, then they're done. They don't keep going. It's people wanting to hear new and different material that come back tour after tour- fans in other words. U2 can fill stadiums because there are enough of the latter group, who keep coming back. 

I really don't understand any sort of argument for suggesting GNR could possibly do a stadium tour again without serious investment in new material. Arenas, sure. Stadiums- no chance. 95 per cent of the people at the NITL shows were ticking the box. They've done it now. Next year it will be Bon Jovi (or whoever else might be touring) for them. 

[RONIN]

12 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

I'm not much of a U2 fan, but come on- you can't really criticize them for not try to move forward, constantly. The reason they've managed to still be as popular as ever is simply that they've done this. No way in hell would they they still be filling stadiums across the world if they were playing the same setlist made up of 80s material over and over. 

Ok there might be an element of 'box tickers' at the shows, there to hear the hits, but they go and see the band once, then they're done. They don't keep going. It's people wanting to hear new and different material that come back tour after tour- fans in other words. U2 can fill stadiums because there are enough of the latter group, who keep coming back. 

I really don't understand any sort of argument for suggesting GNR could possibly do a stadium tour again without serious investment in new material. Arenas, sure. Stadiums- no chance. 95 per cent of the people at the NITL shows were ticking the box. They've done it now. Next year it will be Bon Jovi (or whoever else might be touring) for them. 

Nailed it. The premise of the argument is baffling really. 

People get touchy here when someone mentions that the GnR setlists are stale. Forget the setlists, it's the songs that are stale! Old songs from two albums rehashed year after year for the last 30 years on tour can get a bit tired. Play some new shit. Controversial statement, I know.

1 hour ago, Bono said:

Unreal.  Trust me when I say this, most people at the U2 shows know the material new and old. You're arguing a losing argument here dude. U2's new albums are much more well known by the average U2 concert goer than CD is to the average GnR concert goer. Hate all you want. GnR's career since 1991 has been a fucking joke. The fact you're even remotely suggesting 2 and Metallica haven't gone about business better is insane.

I sincerely doubt anyone is singing along to This I love or Better at a show aside from a few forum geeks in the pit. At the show I went to, there was a mass exodus during the Chinese Democracy songs. Most fans don't know or care about that album. Unlike U2 and Metallica's post 1991 albums, CD was dead on arrival. That album wasn't even relevant to most GnR fans let alone a mainstream music fan that is buying a ticket to a GnR show. Going by Downzy's logic, certainly nobody is buying tickets to hear GnR's last album if album sales, youtube hits, or radio play are any indication. Plenty of people continue to turn out year after year for U2 and Metallica shows because of their new music though. Maybe because those bands actually give their fans what they want and communicate with them regularly instead of disappearing for a decade and dropping a bloated turd called Chinese Democracy on their lap out of nowhere. 

[allwaystired]

11 minutes ago, RONIN said:

Nailed it. The premise of the argument is baffling really. 

People get touchy here when someone mentions that the GnR setlists are stale. Forget the setlists, it's the songs that are stale! Old songs from two albums rehashed year after year for the last 30 years on tour can get a bit tired. Play some new shit. Controversial statement, I know.

I sincerely doubt anyone is singing along to This I love or Better at a show aside from a few forum geeks in the pit. At the show I went to, there was a mass exodus during the Chinese Democracy songs. Most fans don't know or care about that album. Unlike U2 and Metallica's post 1991 albums, CD was dead on arrival. That album wasn't even relevant to most GnR fans let alone a mainstream music fan that is buying a ticket to a GnR show. Going by Downzy's logic, certainly nobody is buying tickets to hear GnR's last album if album sales, youtube hits, or radio play are any indication. Plenty of people continue to turn out year after year for U2 and Metallica shows because of their new music though. Maybe because those bands actually give their fans what they want and communicate with them regularly instead of disappearing for a decade and dropping a bloated turd called Chinese Democracy on their lap out of nowhere. 

Having made that comment- I do think the setlist is fine, FOR NOW, as it's this tour. This tour is NITL, it's doing the rounds, most people see one show- that's all fine. I had a total blast seeing it- loved every second. I love the Chinese Democracy stuff massively- could even be the highlights of the set for me (controversial as that might be in some circles!). It's the future that is starting to matter now though, as the tour reaches it's final legs. New music is about more than simply whether it connects with fans - it's a statement, and sets a tone of expectation, and makes it clear nostalgia isn't the only draw. From those points alone, the inclusion of CD stuff is welcomed I think. OK, all the casuals might not like it, but they do it anyway. That's great in my book. But without new music, the only future is nostalgia...and that's the problem. Nostalgia is rank, fetid, horrific and the domain of the creatively bankrupt and the 'one gig a year' crowd.  No one wants that. Equally however, there may be no future......

[IncitingChaos]

Anyone else think Axl has been using a tour bus to write lyrics/melodies for AC/DC lately? Creating peace and privacy...ok no..just me? 

Im just a little confused as to why he took a bus from Washington to Texas but flew all around Europe

 

[Blackstar]

4 hours ago, IncitingChaos said:

Anyone else think Axl has been using a tour bus to write lyrics/melodies for AC/DC lately? Creating peace and privacy...ok no..just me? 

Im just a little confused as to why he took a bus from Washington to Texas but flew all around Europe

 

He used a tour bus, at least occasionally, during the 2016 NA leg too. Probably it's because he wants privacy in general, and, since they don't use their private plane in NA, he prefers the tour bus to commercial flights.

He had also required to have a piano in his hotel room, at least during the European leg; I don't know if he'd write for AC/DC on piano (AC/DC fans would be very happy to hear that )

Edited September 7, 2017 by Blackstar

[DieselDaisy]

I detest U2 yet even I know they had a few later hits. Were Metallica fans going to see songs like Cyanide or The Day That Never Comes? Yes, why not. Both were good metal songs and fairly well received at the time. If you go to a concert of a band who has just released - officially leaked free if memory serves - songs people like, it is a reasonable assumption that the crowds would like to hear those song. Metallica have done quite well with their last two albums really, dodgy production aside.