Poll: What do we as fans and consumers want?

[duffgnr86]

2 minutes ago, lukepowell1988 said:

I would take any form of new music over  anything even if it was Axl singing a cover version of a Spice Girls song 

wannabe would be cool

[DieselDaisy]

It has been a long time since the Spice Girls' music has been sung by a redhead with breasts.

[DieselDaisy]

6 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

The only way I'll let you out of the bet is if you cough up and buy a mygnr membership, mmk?

You are desperate for your Guns N' Roses cheese, aren't you?

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

You get a membership or get me cheese, your choice guv'ner.

I have every confidence in Rose being thoroughly lazy between nostalgia tours. He'll not let me down. 

[DTJ80]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

It has been a long time since the Spice Girls' music has been sung by a redhead with breasts.

Ha ha - that really made me laugh. 😂

[willl]

New original album would be my preference  

[AncientEvil80]

I have very little interest in any new music from these fellas. If not just a bit of curiosity, but honestly I don't care. Too high probabilities it's gonna suck.

What I would like is for them to open the freakin' Vault for good and release the pro shots/good bootlegs videos of gigs from 1985 till 1991. Or a good Docu (Perfect Crime, UIY era) movie.

 

[DTJ80]

Whilst individually they are OK, together they are a class above and that’s why I want new music.

It would be interesting to hear what they would come up with after so long. And it won’t diminish what has gone before. Any group of people who can write as diverse stuff as from Estranged/Coma to Out Ta Get Me (bring polar opposites of each other) means there is no limit to what these guys can do.

[Ratam]

My guess is that Axl's is most insecure , don't think he is lazy.

[OmarBradley]

11 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Whats a proper musical band?  You play music, thats what makes you a band.  There really is no obligation to make new music if the audience is alright trundling along listening to you do your old shit.  I do see your point though. 

Artists create. The cover band that plays Timmy Johnson's steakhouse every other week is a band, but they are not artists. There's no financial "obligation to make new music if the audience is alright trunding along listening to you do your old shit."

Not only should artists create, they should want to create. This is why Slash and Duff have down their own albums. But having no intention to create and dictating decisions based on financial implications/incentives is an artistic void. 

10 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

What is not to understand? I think you are overlooking the fact that the current setlist already contains plenty of deeper cuts and covers that are not part of the band's nostalgia, and that they can't really strip away the nostalgia songs because then fans wouldn't attend the shows. So the best I can see is that they replace some of the deeper cuts with some other deep cuts, and replace some of the cover songs. Expecting them to break away from the nostalgia theme is, in my opinion, not very realistic. Not even if they release new music do I find it very plausible that they will discard the AFD and UYI hits that draws the crowds. 

My issue with the setlist is less-so about the structure (although, get those ridiculous covers out of there) and more about the fact that it doesn't really get changed over the course of a 3 year tour. On the UYI tour, you had a decently different set each night. Slash (pre 2018) would change his setlist every night. There was mystery to going to those shows, both for the first time and multiple times after. But with GNR now, you know exactly what you're going to get, except maybe you'll get lucky and Steven is there (which he hasn't been for any of the shows I've attended). GNR have been touring the same markets with the same setlist for close to 3 years (much longer if you count pre-reunion), and the addition of extraneous and irrelevant covers makes this worse.

9 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I think it is fairly obvious that when 99.9% of people say, ''new album'', they don't mean covers albums or live albums. 

Yup.

9 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

It doesn't really matter, nor interest me, what your thoughts are on what other people think. 

What I also find funny here is that since you reject CD as a GN'R album it must mean that you don't accept that GN'R existed in all of those 28 years you used as "evidence". So you are basically arguing that a now revived band can't possible release again because it didn't release anything when it was dead. That is funny 

This is more of a fundamental reply to your comments, but I'm interested in seeing your response to this: GNR didn't really exist in all of those 28 years and they are currently in a gray area. GNR was a blues influenced, punk infused rock n' roll band. That band dissolved in the 90's. Axl formed his own group under the name, and he then pursued his industrial/modern/whatever-you-want-to-call-it type rock with an ever-changing cast of (very talented) musicians. It's a good album, but it has little to do with GNR.

Edited February 12, 2019 by OmarBradley

[Tyler Drama]

15 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

My issue with the setlist is less-so about the structure (although, get those ridiculous covers out of there) and more about the fact that it doesn't really get changed over the course of a 3 year tour. On the UYI tour, you had a decently different set each night. Slash (pre 2018) would change his setlist every night. There was mystery to going to those shows, both for the first time and multiple times after. But with GNR now, you know exactly what you're going to get, except maybe you'll get lucky and Steven is there (which he hasn't been for any of the shows I've attended). GNR have been touring the same markets with the same setlist for close to 3 years (much longer if you count pre-reunion), and the addition of extraneous and irrelevant covers makes this worse.

Not to mention the songs’ order. At the very least, that could be changed. Changing things up, opening with different songs, etc.

[OmarBradley]

5 minutes ago, Tyler Drama said:

Not to mention the songs’ order. At the very least, that could be changed. Changing things up, opening with different songs, etc.

Good point too. Literally just switching a few songs' placement each night would go a long way in adding to the experience.

[Gordon Comstock]

On the one hand, I fear that new music would be at the level of "Living The Dream", or Scraped or maybe This I Love. But on the other hand, I don't want an album of rockers. I want them to continue the evolution that were the UYI and CD 'epics' - There Was A Time, Estranged, Locomotive, etc. I'd be happier with songs in the vein of Catcher, Sorry or IRS than hearing them attempt to re-capture the Nightrain vibe.

What I'd expect from a new album would be something on par with UYI II - a few good songs, some clunkers, and a few 'epic' songs.

[MaskingApathy]

On 2/11/2019 at 1:16 AM, AxlRoseCDII said:

All of that would be nice, but as a fan first and fore most what I want is to be treated with some respect 

This^^^

I would be interested in UYI boxset with all of the old demos (incl the ones with Steven) and live footage from that era, NITL live CD/Blu Ray, and new album.

Oh and maybe they can give us our YouTube fan channels back?! And apologize to @fernomenoyde and the others. Almost everyday I'll go look for one of those videos to play while at work then I'll remember that they're all gone...

[Legendador]

On 12/02/2019 at 6:05 PM, Tyler Drama said:

Not to mention the songs’ order. At the very least, that could be changed. Changing things up, opening with different songs, etc.

I agree with the setlist thing, but I think if they took all the covers out and included different songs, each night, it would be awesome.

I'd love to listen to live deep cuts such as "Anything Goes", "Mama Kin", "Reckless Life", "The Garden", "Garden of Eden", "Don't Damn Me", "Bad Apples", "Breakdown", "Get In the Ring", "Shotgun Blues", "Scraped", "Street of Dreams" with Slash. There are so many songs that could be included.

And if we're talking about covers I would love to hear the TSI tunes as well, such as: "Human Being", "Raw Power", "Black Leather" or "I Don't Care About You".

There are so many songs never played live!

Edited February 13, 2019 by Legendador

[RussTCB]

3 hours ago, Ratam said:

My guess is that Axl's is most insecure , don't think he is lazy.

I have no doubt in my mind that that's exactly what it is. I don't think he's lazy at all. I'm sure he's got some GREAT stuff hidden away, he just isn't interested in sharing it with his fans for whatever reason. 

[Ratam]

1 minute ago, RussTCB said:

I have no doubt in my mind that that's exactly what it is. I don't think he's lazy at all. I'm sure he's got some GREAT stuff hidden away, he just isn't interested in sharing it with his fans for whatever reason. 

I always think Axl's as specie crazy scientist .

[Tom2112]

14 hours ago, Azifwekare said:

This used to be me, but now I'm more into bands that make music.

Hey I love all types of bands, gnr are not the only thing I listen to. I might hear a song or two a day sometimes more or less.

But I'm past caring for a new record, if it comes I'll get it but for now I've accepted that it may not come so I just enjoy what I have.

[Evan442]

On 2/11/2019 at 8:11 AM, Gordon Comstock said:

New/unheard music, in any form. Whether that means NITL line-up recording an album, the CD-era leftovers, or Axl/DC. Live releases and over-priced box-sets are relatively uninteresting and wouldn't sell nearly as much as new music would.

I can't believe how much people fawn over the Ritz '88 show, too. It's one of the most bootlegged concerts around, from any band. We've all seen and heard it plenty of times, and honestly it's not that great of a show - most other bootlegs from the AFD era blow it out of the water (Music Machine '86, Ritz '87, Melbourne or Japan '88, etc). If Ritz '88 were their next official release, I wouldn't buy it... if they couldn't be bothered to include it in their $1000 box-set, and want to squeeze an extra $25 out of each fan, then fuck 'em.

Exactly. Plus the Ritz show was shot on video and not film, so a high definition release will only be a standard definition master blown up to HD just like the videos on that blu ray disc in some box set that came out last year that lost to weird al at the Grammys 

[Tyler Drama]

5 hours ago, Legendador said:

I agrees with the setlist thing, but I think if they took all the covers out and included different songs each night would be awesome.

I'd love to listen to live deep cuts such as "Anything Goes", "Mama Kin", "Reckless Life", "The Garden", "Garden of Eden", "Don't Damn Me", "Bad Apples", "Breakdown", "Get In the Ring", "Shotgun Blues", "Scraped", "Street of Dreams" with Slash. There are so many songs that could be included.

And if we're talking about covers I would love to hear the TSI tunes, such as: "Human Being", "Raw Power", "Black Leather" or "I Don't Care About You".

There are so many songs never played live!

 

Of course, that would be ideal!

[gnfnrs1972]

I want that new shirt at Hot Topic with the original 5 playing onstage as skeletons. After that nothing really matters.

[SoulMonster]

11 hours ago, OmarBradley said:

This is more of a fundamental reply to your comments, but I'm interested in seeing your response to this: GNR didn't really exist in all of those 28 years and they are currently in a gray area. GNR was a blues influenced, punk infused rock n' roll band. That band dissolved in the 90's. Axl formed his own group under the name, and he then pursued his industrial/modern/whatever-you-want-to-call-it type rock with an ever-changing cast of (very talented) musicians. It's a good album, but it has little to do with GNR.

I wouldn't agree. I am more pragmatic regarding band and what constitutes a band, and it simply is a bunch of guys playing music together under some kind of band name. It really is that simple to me. The partnership agreement from 1992 doesn't affect that at all. It is basically an agreement detailing how the partners would divide revenues and ownership to the band name. Owners may come and owners may go, partners may leave and partners may be terminated, but the band continues to exist despite of all this, until the band members themselves say the band has been retired. It's like a privately owned company that does an IPO, it is still the same company even if it is now listed and new owners are in. And similarly with football teams, players come and players go, owners come and owners go, but it is still the same team. A band is simply something beyond the legalities and legal boilerplate...to me. Maybe I am more rock and roll and have a romantic view on things?

But of course it isn't only me. The rest of the world, beyond a subsection of hardcore fans, agree that Guns N' Roses has existed throughout these years. The rest of the world simply accepts that it has changed, like all bands do. Vastly different, yes, not as great, sure, but still Guns N' Roses. Again, using a football analogy, Manchester United was Manchester United even when they played shit and had a awful manager and poor players. I might not have liked it as much, I might not have spent money on tickets, but I would never denounce it, reject it and try to argue that it wasn't Manchester United anymore. For some reason, some fans of GN'R try to do that. And the reason, I assume, is to resolve the cognitive dissonance of being a hardcore fan of a band that disappoints you greatly. How to be a diehard fan of a band that put out music you really dislike and pushes away band members you adore? The simple way is simply to deny that it happened. To make yourself believe that the band stopped existing before it got dirty. So it remains pure and pristine for eternity. [Ironically, some of the same guys who argue technicality and claim GN'R was dissolved when Slash became a terminated partner, still argue that the almost-reunited band we have now has somehow become Guns N' Roses again without any evidence at all that Slash is again a partner of the 1992 agreement. There is little consistency ].

To me it isn't a problem, because I am not really a fan of the band (at least not every aspect of it), but more a fan of some of its music. I don't end up in asinine discussions with friends where we argue whether GN'R is great or not. I will simply argue that I like some of the music, and that is a subjective thing that is beyond discussion. 

[RageKage]

20 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

The discussion has come to a point where you just post nonsense.

Like 90% of the time

[Bitchisback]

I voted for everything.  Simply put I want everything.  As much as they put out I will buy.  

[Len Cnut]

Quote

The rest of the world, beyond a subsection of hardcore fans, agree that Guns N' Roses has existed throughout these years.

Arguable.  I don't think I've ever met a single person in my life that considered NuGuns to be Guns n Roses.  Almost every reference to it I've heard has been 'Guns n Roses are touring...well, its not really Guns n Roses, is it?'.

19 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

It has been a long time since the Spice Girls' music has been sung by a redhead with breasts.

Post of the year