Jump to content
DTJ80

Poll: What do we as fans and consumers want?

As fans and consumers, what do we want?  

333 members have voted

  1. 1. As the title says, what do we the fans and consumers want to see made available for purchase? I have listed stuff I would like to see below but I’m sure there are loads of other things.

    • A new album......
      283
    • Officially released Ritz 88 on CD/DVD/Vinyl
      35
    • Officially released Saskatoon 93 on CD/DVD/Vinyl
      36
    • Use Your Illusion boxset
      66
    • Officially released versions of known pro-shots
      59
    • Perfect Crime documentary
      77
    • Official live package of NITL tour
      58
    • Other
      23


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well that is where we are different. My argument pertains to personnel whereas your argument pertains to the legalities of the nomenclature. You rather don't allow yourself to recognise and proclaim a con trick.

Well, I don't think it is a "con trick" to continue with a band despite radical lineup changes :lol: Again, that really says a lot about your emotional investment in lineups and being a fan.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soul is very statist and legal, like an obedient automaton. He doesn't allow himself room to call something ''a complete load of bollocks''. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Yeah, sorry, I didn't catch the wiki page bit.

But that is the crucial thing here. I have zero problems with people saying things like, "to me, Guns N' Roses died in 1994". That's fine. How could I object to what people think? But when people say, "CD is not a record by GN'R" it is more of a universal statement that speaks of an objective truth. That is something I will disagree with, even if I agree with the underlying sentiment.

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Soul is very statist and legal, like an obedient automaton. He doesn't allow himself room to call something ''a complete load of bollocks''. 

Well, you are.

Edited by SoulMonster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

He's got a point y'know Soulie.  What you are arguing is that, OK, me, Noel Edmonds, Roger Moore and Delia Smith should rightfully be called The Beatles and perform their songs and make new albums under that banner and be included in the canon of Beatles works so long as we have the legal right to from Paul McCartney.  Which we could if we did but would it be The Beatles, can you see how that might perhaps raise objections? 

And I would be one that would raise objections :) But I wouldn't object to the resulting music being by the band Beatles (because I couldn't), what I would object to was Paul's decision to hand over the rights of the iconic band name to those guys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But that is the crucial thing here. I have zero problems with people saying things like, "to me, Guns N' Roses died in 1994". That's fine. How could I object to what people think? But when people say, "CD is not a record by GN'R" it is more of a universal statement that speaks of an objective truth. That is something I will disagree with.

I think its a fair statement.  Its not REALLY a record by GnR, its just allowed to be called such and is called such, it don't really bother me broadly speaking but...yeah, it is what it is.  The Clashes last album, Cut the Crap, was after Joe Strummer had fired everyone except him and Paul Simonon the bass player.  To this day its sort of not counted as a Clash album, their all encompassing box set was released and the album was not included, though it is technically a Clash album and goes under that banner its kinda...ignored by silent agreement on the part of everyone, including the people who made it.  Its not even mentioned in their official documentary and ignored on 99.9% of all greatest hits or compilations.  Its looked at as something of an abberation. 

But then I guess that just makes it The Clash album that everyone ignored.  Its all pedantry really.  Its certainly on their Wiki page.  I think with different bands its different too I mean, some musicians just have this special relationship and musical synergy which makes them what they are and its that coming together of talents that informs the bands identity and when its not there anymore more often than not things fall apart, as was the case with The Clash.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Len Cnut said:

I think its a fair statement.  Its not REALLY a record by GnR, its just allowed to be called such and is called such, it don't really bother me broadly speaking but...yeah, it is what it is.  The Clashes last album, Cut the Crap, was after Joe Strummer had fired everyone except him and Paul Simonon the bass player.  To this day its sort of not counted as a Clash album, their all encompassing box set was released and the album was not included, though it is technically a Clash album and goes under that banner its kinda...ignored by silent agreement on the part of everyone, including the people who made it.  Its not even mentioned in their official documentary and ignored on 99.9% of all greatest hits or compilations.  Its looked at as something of an abberation. 

But then I guess that just makes it The Clash album that everyone ignored.  Its all pedantry really.  Its certainly on their Wiki page.  I think with different bands its different too I mean, some musicians just have this special relationship and musical synergy which makes them what they are and its that coming together of talents that informs the bands identity and when its not there anymore more often than not things fall apart, as was the case with The Clash.

The two post-Morrison Doors albums also. Some people are not even aware of their existence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The two post-Morrison Doors albums also. Some people are not even aware of their existence. 

Even I've forgotten their names :lol:  Voices?  Inner Circle?  Some vague hippie sounding shit like that anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CD reminds me of Soul Asylum's last record. They released their first record in 1984 and their last in 2016 and that one was also the first to have the last original remaining member. In the last thirty years the other members got fired, died, or quit the band. I can guarantee you that almost everyone in the fan community considers the last one as a ''real Soul Asylum record''. The  difference with CD is that the original member in Soul Asylum is the singer/guitarist/main songwriter, so even if the other original members had still been part of it, the record probably would have sounded the same for the most part. With CD there's a lot missing in sound and songwriting that people know from the previous records and therefore it doesn't sound like how they expect GnR to sound like, but it is what it is. It's all subjective. (fun trivia fact of the day: Tommy Stinson played in both bands at the same time)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

This is sort of how you have to look at CD, though. Obviously the band was different, there is no "It's So Easy" or "You Could Be Mine" on CD, and that kind of sound isn't really what I compare it to. I look at it like this: Garden of Eden, Dead Horse, Breakdown, Coma, they're all great rock songs, filled with "Axl-isms". Axl was taking the basic hard rock sound of the band, and adding effects to it, for better or worse. In general, that's what he did with CD, IRS, Scraped, etc. And the 'epics/ballads' are a fairly clear progression IMO. But there is some retention of the classic styles, even though they're not exactly what Slash would've done. There's lots of bluesy soloing on the record, plenty of songs that Slash could've easily adapted to IMO. It's not as far removed from UYI as some people make it out to be.

I disagree with you on a lot of things Gn'R but I always like "debating" with you. You're always remain respectful of differing opinions, not afraid to admit when you agree  and have well thought out answers. Even when they are wrong ;)

  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tom-Ass said:

I disagree with you on a lot of things Gn'R but I always like "debating" with you. You're always remain respectful of differing opinions, not afraid to admit when you agree  and have well thought out answers. Even when they are wrong ;)

Thanks :P There's plenty to debate and disagree with about this band, but we're all fans for one reason or another, I enjoy discussing and reading other opinions about them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 11:38 AM, cqleonardo said:

line up wise: kick Frank and bring Matt back (couldn't give two fucks about Izzy or Gilby)

setlist wise: just mix the order, play the same show 1000 times but mix the order of the songs like you did on the Illusions tour, start one show with Easy, the other with Jungle... always thought how would be to start a show with Paradise City....

releases wise: new album, new dvd/bluray of the last tour, Illusions and CD box sets, a vault of live concerts like Springsteen does.

Well, since Axl had major issues with Matt, I doubt he'd be asked to come back.

I wish Steven was healthy enough to tour with GNR. I know he would be thrilled and it would be so cool to see him back on stage with Axl, Slash and Duff. I think Richard is an excellent guitar player and can hold his own with Slash and since Izzy is not reliable I don't see him coming back to the band full time.

On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 9:15 AM, MaskingApathy said:

I bought one of those. It looks great.

Wow that sounds cool. How long ago did you buy this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New album, of course, I need to hear new music from these guys.


But I think I'd be happier with a Chinese box set with all of those songs we've heard about MANY MANY times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Okay, because when you wrote this, "it's fine for bands to explore other styles with their releases, but that's a decision that must be made by the band together, not the guy who wrangled the rights to the name and then drove everyone away with his new stylistic pursuit", it really sounded like it was more how it was done that was the problem with GN'R, not that it was done. But from what you wrote now it sounds like you accept experimenting but not any permanent changes to the stylistic pillars (at least when it comes to GN'R), which of course would be a huge problem to many bands and artists who have had their sound evolve far more than what GN'R has. David Bowie springs to mind. Would you say that fans from the early years of David Bowie, who - if they were are editors of Wikipedia - would be in the right to remove Bowie's later albums from his discography because there is a permanence to his change in musical style? Or maybe it is just bands that change style that you seem to object to, and not individual artists. If so we could talk about Beatles. The musical style of Please Please Me with songs like 'Love Me Do' is quite different from the experimental nature of The White Album (with songs like 'Helter Skelter' and "Revolution 9'). How do you handle that cognitive dissonance? You just say it is okay because everybody in Beatles was behind that change in style from be-bop rock to reverse tapes and psychedelics? What I am trying to figure out, which I know you know, is if you are consistent in your objections or if this really only is about GN'R. And what about Artic Monkeys? They started out with a post-punk revival album and with AM it was a mishmash of contemporary rock with hiphop, heavy metal, and desert rock influences. If you had given AM to kids dancing to "I Bet You Look Good on the Dance Floor" I bet they'd refuse to accept it was the same band.

Yes, David Bowie, Leonard Cohen, etc. are more individual artists than they are bands. And I'd argue they care more about lyrical content and songwriting than they do about music. For me, music is priority #1 in a song (including vocal melody, but not including lyrical content). Despite the fact many people remember bands by song titles/lyrics, it is often (but not always) the music which makes the lasting impression on you, causing you to remember those words. In the case of GNR, I think it's pretty safe to say most of us are attracted to the music primarily and we possibly identify with lyrical content on a secondary level, depending on the song. 

No issue with The Beatles for the following reasons: The Beatles took their stylistic trip together. It's also worth noting the sonic transition you mentioned was partially due to time, the early 60s was the time of 12 bar blues rock (and the 50s of course), the late 60s is when many bands started to experiment. The Beatles were perhaps slightly ahead of the curve in this regard and they almost certainly contributed to future experimentation in the genre, but you can still find blues rocky songs on the later albums. They are a bit more evolved from some of the stuff on the early records, but they're still there alongside the experimental stuff. Although the later Beatles albums are unquestionably different from the early ones, the circumstances and the significance of experimentation are not enough to warrant a name change.

I'm not too familiar with The Arctic Monkeys, I would ask what is their defining content? What other circumstances affected the band that led to stylistic change?

Shinedown is a good example. They were a modernish rock band when they first started ~10+ years ago. Over the course of their existence, every member has left except the singer and a lot of their songs have drifted into the pop rock territory. I would say the current band should not be called Shinedown, due to the extreme personnel change and the music having drifted a bit from the earlier material. This drift is not as drastic as CD, but the personnel component is important, as @DieselDaisy is describing.

21 hours ago, Azifwekare said:

To anyone who thinks that CD is 'too modern' or 'too experimental' or etc etc, genuine question:

Have you actually listened to literally anything released in the last 20 years that wasn't by some bog-standard Led Zep (or, god forbid, Nirvana) wannabes?

I don't think it is too modern or too experimental. I think it is too experimental to be called Guns N' Roses. I have listened to many things released in the last 20 years and very little of it is Zep or Nirvana rip offs. I'm struggling to think of any band I listen to that is derivative of either of those artists (or any major 70s/80s acts in general). I was going to say The Answer for Zepp, but they're really isn't much overlap. I don't listen to Greta or Airborne.

9 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The two post-Morrison Doors albums also. Some people are not even aware of their existence. 

I did not know of their existence until this post.

23 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

CD isn't that much of a departure from UYI, though. It could be argued that Street Of Dreams, Prostitute, Catcher, and This I Love are fairly natural progressions from the piano-based UYI songs (like November Rain or Estranged), or that Sorry, Madagascar and maybe There Was A Time are progressions of the 'experimental' songs (like The Garden, Coma or My World). CD, Better and IRS are relatively traditional rockers... the only songs that really stick out as 'non-GNR sounding' are Shackler's, If The World, Scraped and Riad.

Yes, it makes sense that those four songs feel more UYI because they revolve around Axl singing over a piano. But the rest of the album, that isn't based on piano melodies, doesn't sound like UYI. I was going to systemically go through each one, but this forum is just taking up too much of my time and I have two brand new games I need to play.
Things like Scraped, Riad, Better, IRS, Shackler's, Sorry, and TWAT are not things any musician from the UYI lineup (aside Axl) would have explored on their own. The guitars use scales Slash/Izzy have probably never heard of, and syncopation and abstract dynamics are utilized. Slash is very much about straight up Eb 4/4 guitar riff-based rock music, the "rockers" on CD are not really riff based and the tunings seem to vary depending on song.

22 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

I can see why people think it's too far removed - it's a different band and a different sound. The production is very different from the other albums. But the themes/ideas/styles are at least somewhat comparable, the sounds are different but the artist behind them (Axl) is recognizable.

Aside from the intro/outro of Better, it's basically the kind of song I would expect to hear from Axl Rose in the mid-2000's. It's a rocker with modern elements, that retains some classic characteristics (the vocals, the guitar solo, etc). Same with IRS, at it's core it's a bluesy hard rock song with modern elements (though the final version suffers a lot from over-production). If Slash and Duff can keep the 'Axl-isms' to a minimum then I can imagine an album of similar rockers. Is the song Chinese Democracy, aside from the intro, really that far removed from say, Garden of Eden? Slash doing 'heavier' (I don't want to say 'metal') stuff like Nothing To Say, or some stuff from Contraband, makes me think he'd fit songs similar to Better or CD quite well in the studio.

So the first half of your post seems to confirm what I'm saying? Some of CD sounds like Axl because Axl is the only holdover from the UYI days? Simply containing a guitar solo is not a significant overlapping quality between the music, IMO. I agree that CD is probably the closest rocker on CD to AFD/UYI. It's a short, simple riff-based song that doesn't really take any stylistic liberties. 

21 hours ago, Sydney Fan said:

Slash did mention in interviews and his book that he was prepared try some industrial stuff into guns as long as there was an overall approval within the rest of the band of moving to what sort of music axl wanted guns to represent. What killed this was the inertia of axl not knowing where guns needed to go and the communication between axl and slash was now becoming non existant.

I did read Slash's book, and while I don't remember that part, I believe you. Appreciate you bringing it up. I do recall though it's said that It's 5 O'clock is what Slash would have brought to the table for the next Guns record. It's pretty standard Slash hard rock. Meshing that with Axl's new interests would have still yielded a fairly GNRish sound.

21 hours ago, Azifwekare said:

Except it's not though, is it? What CD was rumoured to be and what we eventually heard are two completely different things. To anyone who didn't bother listening, it would be easy to assume it would be some kind of industrial/hip hop/electronica/whatever the fuck thing, but what we actually got was basically UYI III.

The only genuine difference in sound is that Robin's choppier riffs and Bucket's shredding are in place of Slash's sleazier style. Everything else is just down to a more modern production, which classic Guns would no doubt have also used had they stayed together and released albums in the 2000's. They would have followed through with the 95/96 'lost album' so Slash could get all the bluesy stuff out of his system, then experimented with industrial à la Oh My God, then released a CD-style album.

I disagree. Modern production is not the only difference, nor is it really the issue. Modern production shouldn't = overproduction. Plenty of bare-bones modern rock acts have crisp and fresh sounding records.

The songwriting (especially on the rockers) and production style, is what makes this album so different from past GNR releases.

Edited by OmarBradley
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Well, since Axl had major issues with Matt, I doubt he'd be asked to come back.

Didn't they hang out a few years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Wow that sounds cool. How long ago did you buy this?

Sometime last fall I think, from HT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

I do recall though it's said that It's 5 O'clock is what Slash would have brought to the table for the next Guns record.

One of the things that's interesting about that record is that both Axl and Duff rejected it. People like to think it was an Axl decision but there was a clear consensus between Duff and Axl that it shouldn't be the kind of sound that GNR would evolve into.

Edited by History2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, History2010 said:

One of the things that's interesting about that record is that both Axl and Duff rejected it. People like to think  it was an Axl decision there was a clear consensus between Duff and Axl that it shouldn't be the kind of sound that GNR would evolve into.

I find that surprising, do you know where/when it was said (about Duff specifically)? 

5 O'clock is definitely a Slash record, but many of the songs would fit GNR quite well given what AFD/UYI sound like.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

Yes, it makes sense that those four songs feel more UYI because they revolve around Axl singing over a piano. But the rest of the album, that isn't based on piano melodies, doesn't sound like UYI. I was going to systemically go through each one, but this forum is just taking up too much of my time and I have two brand new games I need to play.

Things like Scraped, Riad, Better, IRS, Shackler's, Sorry, and TWAT are not things any musician from the UYI lineup (aside Axl) would have explored on their own. The guitars use scales Slash/Izzy have probably never heard of, and syncopation and abstract dynamics are utilized. Slash is very much about straight up Eb 4/4 guitar riff-based rock music, the "rockers" on CD are not really riff based and the tunings seem to vary depending on song.

So the first half of your post seems to confirm what I'm saying? Some of CD sounds like Axl because Axl is the only holdover from the UYI days? Simply containing a guitar solo is not a significant overlapping quality between the music, IMO. I agree that CD is probably the closest rocker on CD to AFD/UYI. It's a short, simple riff-based song that doesn't really take any stylistic liberties.

I wasn't trying to say that they sound exactly like UYI songs, but Axl's influence on the material is recognizable enough that CD isn't totally alien to the rest of the catalogue, especially considering that each of the classic albums progressed and explored new styles. Given what we've heard about Axl's musical tastes in the early-mid 90's it's not hard to imagine he would've explored songs like TWAT and Madagascar regardless of who was in the band. Sorry is like a progression of the experimental UYI stuff, like the outro to Locomotive or The Garden, just by a 40-something Axl instead of a 20-something Axl.

We agree that it's a different style from the previous albums, but there are some similarities, mainly to the 'Axl songs' where he had to pull Slash out of his comfort zone. Buckethead's solo on There Was A Time, for example, isn't something that's really 'true to the spirit' of classic GNR. (It's still the best solo on the album tho). But Robin's solo on This I Love, for example, is good enough to hold up to the classic material and isn't a complete stylistic departure from 'GNR'. It's definitely still Robin's style of playing, and I'm not saying it's necessarily better or worse than any classic solo, but it's 'Robin doing a GNR-esque solo', which is all you could really expect on an album like CD. I think CD is a good enough album to hold up to the back catalog, and I view it as Axl progressing the GNR sound (and not doing something totally unexpected, like an album full of Silkworms-type songs), but I can see the other side of the argument too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

I find that surprising, do you know where/when it was said (about Duff specifically)? 

5 O'clock is definitely a Slash record, but many of the songs would fit GNR quite well given what AFD/UYI sound like.

Duff's book if I recall correctly. He said something to the effect of that he was at the meeting where Axl called it "too southern rock for GNR" and that he agreed with Axl.

Edited by History2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

I find that surprising, do you know where/when it was said (about Duff specifically)? 

5 O'clock is definitely a Slash record, but many of the songs would fit GNR quite well given what AFD/UYI sound like.

Gilby, in 1994:

"Well, it's an Axl thing. He just wasn't into what we were doing, so he's kind of rethinking what he wants to do. He just kind of threw a wrench into everything that me, Slash and Matt had worked to. And then Duff came in.
"Duff and Axl have an idea what the album should be, and the rest of us have another idea. So right now, we're not gonna do anything.

http://www.a-4-d.com/t607-1994-05-24-interview-with-gilby

And Duff, in his autobiography:

What made dealing with Axl maddening was the fact that he and I were also in agreement on a lot of things. One of the points of contention between Slash and Axl was a batch of songs Slash brought to the table. Axl thought it was Southern rock—not Guns N’ Roses material. I backed Axl.

[Slash had said in interviews of the time that Axl had used the words "redneck" (for one of the songs) and "retro", not southern rock]

Duff seemingly wasn't particularly fond of the epic ballads, but he was more open to experimenting with different stuff, e.g. rap. And he genuinely likes My World :lol:, he has said so in a couple of interviews.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blackstar said:

Gilby, in 1994:

"Well, it's an Axl thing. He just wasn't into what we were doing, so he's kind of rethinking what he wants to do. He just kind of threw a wrench into everything that me, Slash and Matt had worked to. And then Duff came in.
"Duff and Axl have an idea what the album should be, and the rest of us have another idea. So right now, we're not gonna do anything.

http://www.a-4-d.com/t607-1994-05-24-interview-with-gilby

And Duff, in his autobiography:

What made dealing with Axl maddening was the fact that he and I were also in agreement on a lot of things. One of the points of contention between Slash and Axl was a batch of songs Slash brought to the table. Axl thought it was Southern rock—not Guns N’ Roses material. I backed Axl.

[Slash had said in interviews of the time that Axl had used the words "redneck" (for one of the songs) and "retro", not southern rock]

Duff seemingly wasn't particularly fond of the epic ballads, but he was more open to experimenting with different stuff, e.g. rap. And he genuinely likes My World :lol:, he has said so in a couple of interviews.

 

Thank you so much for digging those up! Those quotes are very useful. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OmarBradley said:

I find that surprising, do you know where/when it was said (about Duff specifically)? 

5 O'clock is definitely a Slash record, but many of the songs would fit GNR quite well given what AFD/UYI sound like.

Its in duffs autobiography 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must have been drunk, which thinking about it is highly probably, when he listened to Snakepit and heard ''southern rock''. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want a bluesy-rock album predominantly written by Axl, Slash, Duff and Fortus with some involvement from Izzy (I'd like more involvement from Izzy, but I'm thinking best case scenario, he'd only be involved with a song or a few songs).  I'd like Steven to handle the drums on one of the songs and maybe even Sorum too (maybe even Gilby playing on a song since he never got a chance to contribute on new material when he was in the band outside of covers from TSI and possibly the cover of Sympathy For The Devil?)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Caught_in_a_Coma said:

I want a bluesy-rock album predominantly written by Axl, Slash, Duff and Fortus with some involvement from Izzy (I'd like more involvement from Izzy, but I'm thinking best case scenario, he'd only be involved with a song or a few songs).  I'd like Steven to handle the drums on one of the songs and maybe even Sorum too (maybe even Gilby playing on a song since he never got a chance to contribute on new material when he was in the band outside of covers from TSI and possibly the cover of Sympathy For The Devil?)

I would even accept Fortus with open arms if we could have the rest of that scenario..

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Must have been drunk, which thinking about it is highly probably, when he listened to Snakepit and heard ''southern rock''. 

Aside from the Beggar's and Hangers riff  I agree...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×