Jump to content

Poll: What do we as fans and consumers want?


As fans and consumers, what do we want?  

334 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Tyler Drama said:

That never stopped them before...

True. I think it was a case of being late again. Tour was over before everything was arranged properly. So maybe we have a FlyGNAir Tour to look forward to. Same old, same old, but now super fans can fly with the band :awesomeface:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one think it was always only the merch. I think it could be as simple as (for example) Fernando saw that people were using flight trackers and figured we might wanna cos play the pilot while we track, just like people cos play Slash and Axl when they attend shows. And in that way, we'd be 'flying with the band.' At best they'd do an Instagram blitz while in flight to interact and show the band boarding and disembarking... in black and white photography of course 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kwick1 said:

I never took "fly with the band" literal. I tend to think more like @soon.They probably took it down after realizing some might take it literally. 

No. They didn't take it down.

https://www.flygnair.com/

Quote

After the successful routing across Europe this past Summer, the GNAIR experience will expand across the Asia Pacific, South Africa and Abu Dhabi. Our new aircraft will again soar the skies in style and provide an experience only GN'R could create.

And if you click 'where we fly':

Quote

We are not done yet.... shits just getting started.

It's all still there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, like I said, I'm still intrigued by what it is or was meant to be. I don't think you could actually board the plane with the band. That seems like a nightmare tbh. I'd just hoped it was something more than: Look, we wasted money on personalizing a rented plane just so we could post some pictures from us on board the plane and sell a few shirts and pins. That seems like a ridiculous businessplan.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It reminds me of this one podcast I listen too. It's a weekly show but if you're a Patreon supporter you get access to their bonus show show called Rush Hour. They literally just do a mini cast, from their car, as they drive home from their day job. 

Monetizing every step of the bands touring reminds me of podcast stuff in general. How the hosts cook HelloFresh, sleep on Leesa mattresses, shave with Harrys, are wearing MeUndies as they cast - they arent merely ads, its there entire life is monetized. Mels like that even. Way less overhead then the traditional model of having a film crew join a band on the plane to monetize the trip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see it as trying to bring GnR to the social media age. Some bands really embrace the power of social media and live stream portions of their shows and give us glimpses into life on the road. GnR fans have to hunt for fans or spouses/ girlfriends streaming to view shows. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

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?'.

That is actually what the guy selling t-shirts at Newcastle Arena said to me in 2012 haha. ''Well it isn't really Guns N' Roses without Slash, is it?''.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

new music

since that wont happen for a long time I'll take a boxset of UYI, especially the cuts with Steven on drums and one CD dedicated to Axls rants (might be able to stretch that to 2 cds?).  instead of fake tattoos, can we get a booklet/ manual on how to survive a concert riot????   

and if that's not possible then some GNR ham to go with the cheese.  lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2019 at 2:46 AM, SoulMonster said:

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 :lol:].

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. 

I think that's totally the wrong way to look at it and the analogy of a sports team is irrelevant and inaccurate.  

It's not a displeasure in the content provided, I like CD! I will modify your analogy: let's say GNR is like a sports team. From 1985 - 1993 they played good ol' American soccer. But then, in 1996, everyone from the original team (except 1.5 members) were gone, this is common for a sports team, yes? But, the one guy who stayed behind now wants to play European football instead. Similar game, but it's not exactly the same. I'm sure fans of either would ridicule you if you genuinely tried to label one as the other. I like both AFD and CD. But positing they are the same artist is an endeavor void of reason. It would be one thing if the people who created what GNR is (and to 99% of people, that's the band that wrote WTTJ, Paradise City, NR, etc.) stayed in the band and evolved their style with Axl. But they didn't. They left because they wanted to continue playing hard rock based on blues/punk, and Axl didn't. Again, I like CD, a lot. TWAT and Prostitute are nearly masterpieces and I quite like several others. But it's just not GNR, it's not the blues/punk based rock band, and CD is not a natural evolutionary step after UYI as some may claim. CD is too far from the rest of GNR's work, both in tonality/audio timbre and style of songwriting. 

Those that argue CD is GNR may have more ground to stand on had the CD lineup remained intact throughout the duration of the wild years and through 2015, allowing for natural artistic evolution and integrity. But it didn't, it was a revolving door of musicians for about 20 years. 

My view on a what a band should be comes from a purer artistic view than what you're approaching this with. I suppose there's not much chance for reconciliation, as I refuse to budge on this. :lol:

On 2/13/2019 at 7:44 AM, SoulMonster said:

But CD was a natural progression of illusions.

Just kidding (no, not really). The important question to me is, why does it matter to you what other people feel on this issue? If some people see some fundamental similarities between UYI and CD, that you don't see, what does it matter? Does it threaten you in any way? Your perceptions of what GN'R was supposed to be? I simply don't get why anyone would get angry over something like that nor do I understand why one would let that anger influence one's idea of what GN'R is or isn't.

I can't believe it either!! And you are absolutely right. I should learn from you and try to be more concise in my posts :)

CD was not a step forward for GNR, it was a step sideways (I don't mean in regards to quality, but musical direction and the band's meta).  I wouldn't say I'm angry about this, but I do feel it's important to debate it.

On 2/13/2019 at 8:18 AM, SoulMonster said:

You are allowed to say whatever you want :lol:

Hell, you are allowed to say it isn't Apple anymore after Jobs died, you are allowed to say it isn't USA anymore with Trump in charge, you are allowed to say it isn't Fleetwood Mac after they moved to California, you are allowed to say it isn't Manchester United anymore, and you are allowed to say it isn't Guns N' Roses.

And you are allowed to say it is only a little bit Guns N' Roses and divide it up as you like. You can say it is only 2/5 Guns N' Roses or 20 % or 0.01 % or whatever.

But just keep in mind this is only a mental exercise, the power to actually define what is Guns N' Roses or not doesn't lie with you, or anyone else besides the band members (and/or legal owners depending upon whatever agreements regulate this). 

And this has nothing to do with agreeing with any sentiments on who was the best drummer in the Beatles. That is subjective. What something is called isn't. 

Without Jeremy Spencer, Peter Green, or Danny Kirwan, no it's not really Fleetwood Mac. It became something else, but it has little to do with the blues rock band it started as (I like both eras). <- this one I'm sort of not serious about, because the defining content of what made Fleetwood Mac who they are, came after the blues rock era. For GNR, their defining content was AFD. This is not to say artists should be limited to explore new stylistic options (AFD to UYI is a good example), but if you present a certain sound, you are expected to roughly stick to it. Among other reasons, this is why CD didn't sell terribly well.  

EDIT: And stop comparing GNR to non-artistic things! :P Companies, countries, and sports teams are designed with longevity and sustainability in mind. Artistry is not built that way.

Edited by OmarBradley
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

I think that's totally the wrong way to look at it and the analogy of a sports team is irrelevant and inaccurate.  

It's not a displeasure in the content provided, I like CD! I will modify your analogy: let's say GNR is like a sports team. From 1985 - 1993 they played good ol' American soccer. But then, in 1996, everyone from the original team (except 1.5 members) were gone, this is common for a sports team, yes? But, the one guy who stayed behind now wants to play European football instead. Similar game, but it's not exactly the same. I'm sure fans of either would ridicule you if you genuinely tried to label one as the other. I like both AFD and CD. But positing they are the same artist is an endeavor void of reason. It would be one thing if the people who created what GNR is (and to 99% of people, that's the band that wrote WTTJ, Paradise City, NR, etc.) stayed in the band and evolved their style with Axl. But they didn't. They left because they wanted to continue playing hard rock based on blues/punk, and Axl didn't. Again, I like CD, a lot. TWAT and Prostitute are nearly masterpieces and I quite like several others. But it's just not GNR, it's not the blues/punk based rock band, and CD is not a natural evolutionary step after UYI as some may claim. CD is too far from the rest of GNR's work, both in tonality/audio timbre and style of songwriting. 

Those that argue CD is GNR may have more ground to stand on had the CD lineup remained intact throughout the duration of the wild years and through 2015, allowing for natural artistic evolution and integrity. But it didn't, it was a revolving door of musicians for about 20 years. 

My view on a what a band should be comes from a purer artistic view than what you're approaching this with. I suppose there's not much chance for reconciliation, as I refuse to budge on this. :lol:

CD was not a step forward for GNR, it was a step sideways (I don't mean in regards to quality, but musical direction and the band's meta).  I wouldn't say I'm angry about this, but I do feel it's important to debate it.

Without Jeremy Spencer, Peter Green, or Danny Kirwan, no it's not really Fleetwood Mac. It became something else, but it has little to do with the blues rock band it started as (I like both eras). <- this one I'm sort of not serious about, because the defining content of what made Fleetwood Mac who they are, came after the blues rock era. For GNR, their defining content was AFD. This is not to say artists should be limited to explore new stylistic options (AFD to UYI is a good example), but if you present a certain sound, you are expected to roughly stick to it. Among other reasons, this is why CD didn't sell terribly well.  

EDIT: And stop comparing GNR to non-artistic things! :P Companies, countries, and sports teams are designed with longevity and sustainability in mind. Artistry is not built that way.

So you argue that the change in direction was too much for it to still be Guns N' Roses. Other people disagree. Who is right? None, because it isn't up to either to decide this but up to the band itself. They and they alone decide what style of music they will release under their band name and people and there is nothing you can do about it regardless of how much it disagrees with your expectations of what that band should do and sound like. It isn't up to you. GN'R may release an acapella record of Mongolian throat singing and it would still be a record by Guns N' Roses. 

It's like a movie franchise ;). Hardcore fans of the first Star Wars movies (those that were released first) can't seriously say the later movies weren't Star Wars movies. It doesn't work that way. Peoples' own subjective feelings, no matter how intense they might be or how many share them, still has no bearing on what something is

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

So you argue that the change in direction was too much for it to still be Guns N' Roses. Other people disagree. Who is right? None, because it isn't up to either to decide this but up to the band itself. They and they alone decide what style of music they will release under their band name and people and there is nothing you can do about it regardless of how much it disagrees with your expectations of what that band should do and sound like. It isn't up to you. GN'R may release an acapella record of Mongolian throat singing and it would still be a record by Guns N' Roses. 

It's like a movie franchise ;). Hardcore fans of the first Star Wars movies (those that were released first) can't seriously say the later movies weren't Star Wars movies. It doesn't work that way. Peoples' own subjective feelings, no matter how intense they might be or how many share them, still has no bearing on what something is

 

I haven't seen many people disagree the change in direction was too much to be considered the same band as AFD/UYI. I have seen a lot of people sticking to the argument you're using: GNR is a legal entity and it factually exists under the name GNR and that's the printed text on the record. Quite a superficial defense. I'm aware it isn't up to me. This is not about starting a Change.org petition to get Axl to change the name. He doesn't give a fuck what we think. I am simply expressing a view I feel is important.

I don't see the SW analogy. The arguments about the prequels and newest trilogy usually don't revolve around them not being Star Warsy enough, but them just being not that good in terms of quality. I don't see people claiming TLJ or TFA aren't true Star Wars movies, but I see a lot of people claiming they're disappointing to varying degrees.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

So you argue that the change in direction was too much for it to still be Guns N' Roses. Other people disagree. Who is right? None, because it isn't up to either to decide this but up to the band itself. They and they alone decide what style of music they will release under their band name and people and there is nothing you can do about it regardless of how much it disagrees with your expectations of what that band should do and sound like. It isn't up to you. GN'R may release an acapella record of Mongolian throat singing and it would still be a record by Guns N' Roses. 

It's like a movie franchise ;). Hardcore fans of the first Star Wars movies (those that were released first) can't seriously say the later movies weren't Star Wars movies. It doesn't work that way. Peoples' own subjective feelings, no matter how intense they might be or how many share them, still has no bearing on what something is

 

How do we translate the band owning that decision of calling it GNR?. At that stage there was only 1 original member to call it guns n roses that owned the name therefor axl has to take ownership of the debate and own that decision all by himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Wow! A lot of what you listed I would love!

It was hard to decide, but I really would love a dvd/cd set of the last tour. but like I said, so many items you listed would be awesome to have from GNR!

I would like to add one more:

An autobiography written by Axl Rose.

To be fair - the reason you like so many is because they are all what I would class as ‘obvious items’.

Nothing on the list is that ‘far out’ in the grand scheme of things and many of the items are actually in their possession right now and could easily by released/packaged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, OmarBradley said:

I haven't seen many people disagree the change in direction was too much to be considered the same band as AFD/UYI. I have seen a lot of people sticking to the argument you're using: GNR is a legal entity and it factually exists under the name GNR and that's the printed text on the record. Quite a superficial defense. I'm aware it isn't up to me. This is not about starting a Change.org petition to get Axl to change the name. He doesn't give a fuck what we think. I am simply expressing a view I feel is important.

I don't see the SW analogy. The arguments about the prequels and newest trilogy usually don't revolve around them not being Star Warsy enough, but them just being not that good in terms of quality. I don't see people claiming TLJ or TFA aren't true Star Wars movies, but I see a lot of people claiming they're disappointing to varying degrees.

 

It doesn't matter how many think something. Whether a band is Guns N' Roses or not is up to a consensus decision. It is not up to anyone's decision besides the band itself. They decide, not me, not you. We can be as annoyed and angry and dismayed and bitter and whatever, it doesn't affect reality one little bit. 

As I have said before, I have no problems with people saying that to them this doesn't feel like Guns N' Roses, but as soon as they move away from such a subjective description to a more objective "this isn't Guns N' Roses" we immediately move into the legal discussion because now a statement is made about the existence of something which really isn't up to opinions.

Let's say you were the editor of the band's wikipedia page. Would you then remove CD as part of their discography? If not, then you accept that it is an entirely subjective thing and I would argue that instead of saying "this isn't Guns N' Roses" you'd come off a lot better just saying, "I don't like this version of Guns N' Roses".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sydney Fan said:

How do we translate the band owning that decision of calling it GNR?. At that stage there was only 1 original member to call it guns n roses that owned the name therefor axl has to take ownership of the debate and own that decision all by himself.

I think with Guns N' Roses (and it isn't like this with all music groups) the band name itself was protected and that protection was held by Axl Rose. This means that he, and he alone, can decide what constitutes Guns N' Roses. What is good about that is that we avoid multiple GN'R's in existence and long-time legal arbitration, because the legality is so clear-cut. What is bad about that is that he may decide to take GN'R in directions that not everybody who are emotionally invested in the band are comfortable with (which I would argue is what we are seeing now).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

It doesn't matter how many think something. Whether a band is Guns N' Roses or not is up to a consensus decision. It is not up to anyone's decision besides the band itself. They decide, not me, not you. We can be as annoyed and angry and dismayed and bitter and whatever, it doesn't affect reality one little bit. 

As I have said before, I have no problems with people saying that to them this doesn't feel like Guns N' Roses, but as soon as they move away from such a subjective description to a more objective "this isn't Guns N' Roses" we immediately move into the legal discussion because now a statement is made about the existence of something which really isn't up to opinions.

Let's say you were the editor of the band's wikipedia page. Would you then remove CD as part of their discography? If not, then you accept that it is an entirely subjective thing and I would argue that instead of saying "this isn't Guns N' Roses" you'd come off a lot better just saying, "I don't like this version of Guns N' Roses".

The Holy Roman Empire was a legal name. How holy, Roman, or imperial was the country? How about the German Democratic Republic? The Scion FRS and Subaru BRZ are legal names that would lead one to believe they're different cars, but they're 99% the same car.   

A name does not truly define something. Its content does. 

Whether a band is named Guns N' Roses or not is up to the band itself (and really, we're talking solely about Axl here, not "the band"). Axl decides, not me and not you. If Axl recorded an album of Mongolian throat singing, it would not be GNR simply because that's the "dba" on the incorporation form.

Yes, I would unhesitatingly remove CD from GNR's Wikipedia page, but I'm in the minority view so I'd be banned for doing so (if I repeatedly tried to).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

Yes, I would unhesitatingly remove CD from GNR's Wikipedia page, but I'm in the minority view so I'd be banned for doing so (if I repeatedly tried to).

Would you do the same for other bands who have changed their style too much? Like Fleetwood Mac. And how about all artists who have shifted from country to pop, or pop to rock, or doom to death metal. What about Beastie Boys going from punk to rap. I assume you accept only their punk albums as proper Beastie Boys albums (or was it the rap album?). Ween released a country album. But I guess you reject it as a Ween album? Radiohead was a typical guitar based, grungy outfit but turned very experimental in later releases. Blur can hardly be put into any category. And so on, and so on. Would you change all these band's discography pages on Wikipedia and what criteria would you use, simply what you subjectively feel is "true" to that band?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, DTJ80 said:

To be fair - the reason you like so many is because they are all what I would class as ‘obvious items’.

Nothing on the list is that ‘far out’ in the grand scheme of things and many of the items are actually in their possession right now and could easily by released/packaged.

Well, I would love Axl to write his autobiography because I so want to know his life before, during and after GNR. I'm pretty sure it would be so damn interesting.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

The Holy Roman Empire was a legal name. How holy, Roman, or imperial was the country? How about the German Democratic Republic? The Scion FRS and Subaru BRZ are legal names that would lead one to believe they're different cars, but they're 99% the same car.   

You know of the Voltaire quote sir?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...