PatrickS77

1 hour ago, jamillos said:

 e) ticket sales, organization, and logistics take time, you can’t do it within like a month… etc. 

That's why there are concerts scheduled throughout the year and only cancelled last minute. Once politicans allow it, concerts can go ahead. Within a month. At least theoretically.

27 minutes ago, Eddie Money said:

This pandemic is taking away valuable shelf-life of our aging rock stars. 

That's for sure and really the worst thing about it. Most bands and acts I like and want/wanted to see are old too. Alice Cooper, Aerosmith, Scorpions, Queen, Rolling Stones, Diana Ross.... and the ones that aren't aren't exactly young.

2 hours ago, downzy said:

Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy...

 

Yeah. And nevermind that persistent rumours that Melania is looking for divorce, once this is over.

7 hours ago, spunko12345 said:

Well nobodys appeared to be able to have got it failsafe in the thousands of years since it existed so at this point I say yeah just scrap the whole thing.

The thing is, none of the judges really seem to give a shit, which is the problem.

10 hours ago, Dazey said:

You can't really do that though. No legal system is going to have a different threshold for conviction. It's either beyond reasonable doubt or it's not. You can't say we're pretty sure that this guy did it so we're going to give him a life sentence but this other guy we're REALLY sure about so we can kill him.  

Why not? A judge decides on what the penalty is. There are sentencing hearings. If there is still some doubt, despite conviction, he could decide on prison for life instead of death row. Take the Peterson case for example. They don't know how the woman died. They don't know when the woman died. They don't know where the woman died. They just know by circumstantial evidence, that it had to be the husband who killed her. That to me is a case that should be a life term, whereas the Aurora/Batman shooting, where there are actual witnesses, would be a clear cut death penalty case. If that means a reduction of death penalties, then that wouldn't be so bad either, would it?

11 hours ago, spunko12345 said:

Paying for them to live out the rest of their life in prison is the cost that society has to bear to avoid innocent people being murdered by the state.

The alternative is to accept that innocent people will be killed by the state as collateral to satisfy people wanting an eye for an eye, its a numbers game and its inevitable mistakes will (and have) been made pretty often by what i see from other posters here. What gives anyone the right to decide that that its a fair trade off.

I don't know about you but I wouldn't be prepared to tell a family of someone wrongly executed "Sorry we fucked up there when we killed your son/daughter/brother but hey we offed 15 other proper fucking scumbags bang to rights so swings and roundabouts eh"

For that you don't need to abolish the whole death penalty. There just needs to be a bigger threshold of when one is "eligible" for it. And that should look into the quality of the conviction and case the prosecution puts forward, meaning how likely it is that the verdict is wrong. Also usually people don't get put down the day after the verdict. It's usually years. You would think enough time to get any verdict corrected.

Depends on the crime. And how proven it is that the person is actually guilty. In this case, she got what she deserved. Won't shed a tear for her.

18 hours ago, Gackt said:

You really judged a man's entire career based around you not liking how he performed the intro of a song?  

I base it on how the fucker left before the Zurich show, making me drive out there, only to find out that the show had been cancelled. Good thing he never came back.

A little update on recently watched shows on Amazon Prime:

The catch
Siren Season 1
Quantico Season 2+3
Station 19 Season 1+2
The Shannara chronicles
Babylon
Harper's Island
From Dusk til dawn
Mr. Robot
South of hell
Bellevue
Utopia
Condor
Bullets
The city & the city
SS-GB
Sleepy Hollow
The Orville
The girlfriend experience
The Killing
9-1-1
Falling Water
In the line of duty Series 5
Dreamworks Dragons Season 1+2
Charlie's angels Season 2
Homeland Season 6-8

Damn, and there is still so much to go. But lockdown is good for something after all. ;-)

22 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Would it help matters move along if I just lied at this point and said "yes, I set out to twist the words of you, even though I was quite clearly quoting and responding to someone else?" 

I mean, whatever works for you really at this juncture. It doesn't really matter to me one way or the other, but clearly it's bothering you! 

Geez. You weren't really responding. You were merely doubling down on what that other guy (in response to me) said and repeated what he said. So forgive me in assuming it was directed at me. Way to dodge the issue though. But alright, should have known it was a waste of time to even respond to anything here. There is nothing worth to talk about GNR at this point.

2 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

The 'casuals don't want new music' is a constant claim and debate on here.

I quoted a different poster discussing the issue, so literally have no clue why you thinking I'm 'twisting any of your words'. I have no idea what your opinions on the matter are....if I could be bothered I could go back a few pages and find out I suppose, if you've discussed it? 

Probably not worth my time and effort though, I'd be guessing! 

So....on with the debate! 

 

Right. The old "I haven't read what you posted in the last 5 hours" thing. Yeah. Whatever. No point discussing and reading what people write here.

30 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Please point out the bit where I'm twisting anything anyone says, or even referring to anyone specific. 

Since you're responding to something I have said/are misrepresenting something I said, it's a given. No one else was making a similar point.

28 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

The 'they can sell tickets without a new album' thing is sort of blown out of the water by the fact.....they aren't selling tickets. 

And that a new album will solve all problems isn't proven either. I think the main obstacle are ticket prices. The novelty has worn off. People who haven't seen them before, already caved it and bought expensive tickets. Some don't want to do this again.

2 hours ago, JimiRose said:

They're a band! Musicians! musicians release music. By this logic, why did they even bother releasing the illusions? Why did ACDC release anything after back in black? Release new music, tour it. that's the deal. 

That's what I said a page ago already.

2 hours ago, allwaystired said:

The idea that 'there's no point' if you've done something great in the past is insane. Imagine if The Beatles had done that! 'Well, you know, nothing we do is going to be as good as Revolver, so let's never release anything ever again'!

I said there is no point in terms of touring and actual demand for new music outside of die hard fans. I never said that they shouldn't do it. Don't twist what I said.

1 hour ago, Gordon Comstock said:

Also, some people here seem to seriously underestimate how popular the UYI songs are... those albums really don't have a lot of "deep cuts". When your entire catalogue is essentially 3 popular albums, even "casual fans" are gonna be familiar with Estranged, Pretty Tied Up, Coma, etc. Civil War and Yesterdays still get occasional radio play, last time I heard Don't Cry on the radio is was the alt version... let's not pretend they only know November Rain.

Yes. I'd wager the prospect of having those songs played would drum up more interest than any new song taking the place of a well loved classic song.

16 minutes ago, StayofExecution2020 said:

bUt cAsuAls oNly WanT thE HiTs

And that's the truth. Whether you like that or not.

23 minutes ago, Walapino said:

Releasing a new album gives the band a breathe of fresh air by a marketing stand point too.

And that's the only reason why it could make sense. The marketing push. Not the actual music.

27 minutes ago, jamillos said:

A little advice: Any time you guys bump into this “casual fans won’t wanna hear that / videos cost too much” type of bullshit scheme in your head, just use one particular rule of thumb which goes like this: How the hell have all those heaps and loads of other bands and artists managed then!?

There, you’re welcome. 

Probably by constantly releasing new stuff, never descending into that legends mode where new material is irrelevant and don't count anymore and most people come for the old stuff instead of the new. But even for artists like U2, Bruce Springsteen, Rolling Stones, Kiss, Prince (while he was still alive) Metallica, Alice Cooper... who have managed to release new stuff here and there, the casuals to not go to their shows to listen to their current songs. They go for the hits. I'd say most bands reach the point after a number of years, where casuals come see them for the hits and not for the weaker new songs that can't hold a candle to the tried and tested staples and take their place. Any new song means a hit less played. It's usually only the die hards, who are tired of the hits and want new stuff.

9 minutes ago, StayofExecution2020 said:

Casual fans dont have any interest in seeing the same show more than once. If they know, they're getting something comepletely new, they'll be more tempted.

Casual fans are interested in seeing the hits. Not in new songs that most likely pale in comparison.

4 minutes ago, Legendador said:

See, so by what your saying, GNR is doing nothing for the hardcore fans, but also nothing for the casuals!

B-O-R-I-N-G!!!

No. What I'm saying is, that casuals wouldn't care too much about new stuff and that you overstate the importance of it and the people who are looking for new stuff are mainly the die hards, who are a minority in the stadiums. Point is, they wouldn't gain too much by actually releasing new stuff, as the majority won't give a shit, unless it's as great as AFD.

45 minutes ago, Legendador said:

Well, but by your rationale why did Metallica released anything after the Black Album, or Ozzy after No More Tears?

Because they wanted to?? There are artists who actually want to release stuff. That doesn't have anything to do with how a casual will feel. And if you are talking about quality, there are plenty, especially casuals, who only hear the singles if anything, who feel it went all downhill after those mentioned albums. Some would say, the quoted albums are already part of the downwards slope.

On 1/10/2021 at 12:37 PM, JimiRose said:

Yes, because that's what every other band in history does. You release an album, then tour that album live, with a selection of your greatest hits for 1-2 years. then go back into the studio write a new one and repeat. It's a tried and trusted system! GnR are just lazy amateurs. 

Maybe you overestimate though how many casuals actually want new songs. How many casuals do want to pay a shit load for a ticket to go to a show that features 5 songs they don't know. Casuals do not flock to check out new albums. To many of those casuals new songs are bathroom/bar breaks as, let's face it, the likelyhood that those songs really stand up with the classics, is rather slim at this point. So really, the ones clamoring for new songs are the die hards. Not the casuals.

1 hour ago, StayofExecution2020 said:

You'd think that someone like Slash would know how to keep his son off heavy drugs.

What the hell is he supposed to do, when the person in question is too stupid to get it??

10 hours ago, rocknroll41 said:

Yeah young adults make these sort of mistakes of airing their dirty laundry out in public and whatnot. I’m sure they’ll learn from it in time.

That being said, it was still wrong for them to basically publicly label Weiland’s kid as an addict. Now that said news is out there, however, I feel sorry for the boy. I hope he bounces back, and doesn’t end up like his father.

Well. Apparently what happened to his father provides no clue to him. Some people are too stupid to get it.

38 minutes ago, Powerage5 said:

How do you know the "douche" isn't the one in the marketing team that put "PWR/UP" on the posters?  

 

But, if you ask my opinion, too much of this thread recently has been wasted on a pedantic argument. @janrichmond already suggested we leave it up to the OP to decide whether or not the title of this thread needs to be changed, I have already tried to steer the conversation back to actual conversation and that didn't work so now I'll outright say it: you have your opinions, no one else agrees with them and it's clear no one's minds are going to be changed. Time to drop it and move on. 

You keep defending that shit, even though it is clear as day that what the artwork says is what's right. So the only one wasting time is you.

5 hours ago, James Bond said:

The band has referred to it both stylized and unstylized, so it would seem apparent that both are acceptable. I can't imagine being so bothered by a thread title.

Like Alice Cooper said, it's the little things. And I can't comprehend people deliberately using the wrong name, when it clearly is PWR/UP. But that mistake starts with whatever douche responsible for their captions. No eyes for details. 

7 hours ago, WhazUp said:

Would you verbally tell someone "hey man did you hear the new AC/DC album Power Up", or "hey man did you hear the new AC/DC album Pwwrr, lighting bolt icon, up"? 

You are aware that we are NOT verbally communicating here?