SoulMonster

On this we agree, I am sure the majority will whine and complain when it comes out, too. As for whether it is garbage, I will wait with my conclusion until I have actually seen it, and not just let emotions run away with me because AI has been used

I have no idea to what extent the band members have been involved or not, and I guess neither have you, but personally I am very happy Axl isn't involved in the way he was back in the 90s which resulted in the cringy Illusion trilogy. MTV came and went.

Again, more effort seems to have gone into this than any of their recent videos since it is a combination of live footage (of the same quality as Perhaps, it seems) combined with a story with graphics created with the assistance of AI. So the effort level is the best we have seen from this band since, well, the 90s. If this video deserves this much criticism then I would hate to hear your opinions on the Perhaps video (which ONLY had live footage) or the Shadow Of Your Love video (which only had designed still images). So I don't know where "lazy" comes into it. Maybe because the graphic designers are using AI to help create the graphics? In a sense, that is their decision and more and more graphic designers are using AI as a tool in visualizations. There is nothing more inherently evil or lazy in this than when automatic sewing machines were introduced in England back in the 19th century and the reactions here are positively luddite. Garbage? Have you already seen the video? Wow! Please, please, tell Me more about this! Or is your knee-jerk reaction to anything this band does to whine and complain?...

How does the fact that The General "didn't exactly crush it" make the band's decision to release a video somehow worse? That they decide to make a video, even for a song that isn't their best, is a PLUS in my book. I applaud their decision to make music videos, even for their crappiest songs. And then some general comments to all the whining about AI, not directed at you, @downzy First, from the snippet it seems to be a video of mixed live footage combined with a story generated, at least partially, with the help of AI. The combination of these two things makes it surpass the effort levels of the Perhaps video or the Hard Skool video, immediately. Secondly, the part with AI generated graphics seems to be some fairly complicated story, it isn't just simple stills like in the Hard Skool video, it is actually quite complicated. Thirdly, the fact that it is AI doesn't mean someone has typed in "make a GN'R music video" in some AI generating software, it means that someone has, at least partially, used AI software to create the intended graphics to a script someone has come up with. In short, this is a video with a considerable budget and the effort required surpasses the videos we have seen over the last years (wow, did I just say that about GN'R, "videos we have seen the last years"!?! The band is making videos again!! Wow!) I think some of the reactions are from people who think "AI=evil!!! ARRGH" and some that have still not realized the band will never do another video like the UYI trilogy again (and on a personal note, thanks for that! Those were and are cringy).

Ah, ok.

You didn't like the Perhaps video? I thought it was pretty cool.

I think it looks cool.

1997-2001: AXL'S STALKER

Sure, money was likely a big part of it, and exposure. The exposure was likely very important. But I also think he found aspects of it very satisfying and fun, like meeting fans, the prospect of making new GN'R music, and to some extent he likely didn't want to be a quitter and had job integrity and wanted to be a team player and all that. He was torn. But yeah, in hindsight he probably should have left earlier, and he will likely agree to that.

My summaries of BBF wanting out of GN'R: BUMBLEFOOT IS UNCOMFORTABLE IN GUNS N' ROSES NOVEMBER 2011 (?): BUMBLEFOOT TRIES TO DRINK HIMSELF TO DEATH NOVEMBER 20, 2011: WILKES BARRE; BUMBLEFOOT IS "ONE CONVERSATION AWAY FROM QUITTING" JULY-SEPTEMBER 2012: "FUCK GNR"; THE TOURING ITINERARY IS HARD ON BUMBLEFOOT NOVEMBER 2013: BUMBLEFOOT THREATENS TO LEAVE GUNS N' ROSES But yes, he did a lot of good for GN'R. He had many good ideas and was extremely fan friendly. A solid guy, Bumblefoot, but not a great fit with GN'R. Maybe that's why.

Caram is not working with GN'R anymore.

Family was included in the Perhaps video, like family and friends of other band members, too, and crew members. It would be weird if the Lebeis were excluded, don't you think? As for them being everywhere, well, they are both family and managers so it is sort of double the amount a band manager would be visible (and some band managers are very much hands-on and not exactly in the shadows) and double the amount close family would be visible (like Meegan or whatever Duff's wife is called). My "problem" is not that they are everywhere, I would expect that from both family and especially managers, but the strategy Axl has chosen by not doing interviews and not communicating to much extent. But that's on him, not on the Lebeis. As for Fernando's abuse allegations, so you were talking about some sex abuse cult? If not, I don't see the relevance.

I think that's an interesting question. I am sure Axl has been better off from it, and I believe we have been, too. I think without the Lebeis' Axl would have gone to ground and we would have received no more shows or music from him. Axl always struggled with serious depression and he really needed love and care, and they gave him that. I don't agree that they are like a cult, as you phrased it. They are a family. And they are really approachable if you meet them, as confirmed by many people here. There is nothing really sinister here expect what some fans' conjure in their minds. They insulate Axl, but not for nefarious purposes, as far as I can tell. They don't communicate much in their official capacity from Team Brazil, though, and that is I understand it per Axl wishes. And maybe that's for the better, too? Considering that they don't tend to make a good impression when they do. It is problematic to mix family and business, it is challenging. And their love for Axl might not always necessarily be the best for him business-wise, but one cannot blame them for having his personal best interests in mind. That's what family does. And family trumps business. An unrelated manager wouldn't do things the way they do, but all previous unrelated managers since 2000s have failed to both move the band forward at reasonable speeds and failed at taking care of Axl. At least that's what it looks to me. So I guess it is what it is. Btw, Beta is not officially part of the managing team anymore, it is Fernando and Vanessa.

I am not anyone's mouthpiece. This is a discussion board, expect your posts to be commented upon by others. Deal with it.

There was no humour to be found, I believe, it was a genuine speculation on whether Axl's somewhat deviating sexual preferences could have limited his ability to form long-term relationships. That was exactly what was said and, as Ratam has confirmed, how it should be interpreted. You are the one that interpret it to mean that she wanted to "deny women's sexual agency", that it implies that no woman could form a relationship with Axl, and now you describe that speculation as "cold". Again, for emphasis, you are the one reading between the lines and finding meaning and statements that weren't there nor intended, you are the one failing to react to people as if they "say what they mean and mean what they say" - you are the one making assumptions about Ratam's intended meaning. Maybe time to pick up another self-help book because it doesn't seem "The Four Agreements" is working for you...

You would be hard pressed to find anyone who would agree with your interpretation here, and I am certainly and obviously not among them. Let's for fun replace "kinky sex" with "keto diet", then the original statement from Ratam becomes, "Axl used like some the keto diet too. Maybe is the reason he is still single." [And on a sidenote, this is an entirely legit opinion to have, too, and although having weird preferences, in diet or sex or whatever, can certainly limit the number of compatible partners in life one can find, it would be wrong to conclude, in my opinion, that the reason for a life-long solitary lifestyle would solely come down to something like a weird diet... or enjoying kinky sex. Fortunately, the human condition is so diverse that one would either likely find someone sharing your minority dietary preferences (or sexual preferences) or one would find someone to live with who didn't - even if this wasn't a perfect match.] Anyway, your response to this new statement would then be that Ratam was denying women their own dietary agency and that Ratam would suggest that no woman could possibly enter a relationship with Axl due to his keto diet. Do you now see how absurd that interpretation is? By pondering whether Axl's weird diet has affected his ability to sustain relationships you are arguing that this question in itself contains an implicit denial of other people's dietary choices. As if Ratam passed judgment on people that are on a keto diet instead of matter-of-factly opening up for the possibility that Axl's somewhat deviating sexual preference could have limited his possibilities to find a good long-term relationship. Regardless, I don't think you need to act affronted here, Ratam did not seek to deny anyone's sexual agency nor suggest that no woman would be in a relationship with him. It was all a misunderstanding on your part, a rather telling one.

I don't think anyone has criticized you for it in this thread. I get the idea from your exaggerated and somewhat confusing reaction to what Ratam wrote. Again, her speculating on whether Axl's sexual preferences could be the reason for him not having a long-term relationship doesn't warrant you accusing her of denying "women's sexual agency" and it was certainly not implied in what Ratam wrote that "no woman could possibly enter a relationhip with [Axl]", as you concluded.

Sorry for not getting the part where you emphasized it wasn't @BluegrassBlues you accused of denying anyone's sexual agency. That being said, my points towards your reactions to her opinions stand. As for @Ratam: I don't see how her pondering whether Axl's kinky sex preferences could be part of him being single, is denying women's sexual agency. Regardless of whether such speculation is warranted or not - and whether it makes sense or not - that discussion in itself doesn't deny anyone's sexual agency. It is a fact of life that the number of compatible partners are reduced in proportion to one's extent of deviating behavior. Similarly, someone could ponder whether anyone's deviating diet makes it harder for them to make long-term relationships without that being an attempt to deny anyone their right to have whatever diet they want. Again, it seems like people bring critical of your sexual opinions/behavior in the past has made you overly sensitive and apt to interpret otherwise neutral comments as criticism of you.

I don't understand where someone has denied anyone's sexual agency in this thread. @BluegrassBluessaid that she doesn't like porn and that she didn't like they they recorded sex acts. That's her opinion and it doesn't deny anyone's sexual agency nor did she say anything that in good faith could be construed to mean she wanted to limit, negate or deny anyone their opinions on sex. It seems like you take her opinions as an attack on your opinions and thoughts on sexuality. That's unnecessary and not constructive. Maybe many people have been critical of you and your opinions on sexuality in the past and hence you have become a bit sensitive to this issue, which is understandable, but again, I don't see anyone doing that in this thread. So chill. And again you are implying that someone can't be a GN'R fan if they don't have sexual opinions aligned with yours.

Probably.

Kind of condescending to claim she couldn't "handle the answer" when all she did was state that she doesn't see the appeal of bandmembers recording them having sex and that she is anti-porn. That is not not handling it, that is stating her personal opinions on the band's behavior. At no point did she appear grossed our, shocked or appalled by anything. Maybe you mix people up? In fact, it seems like you were the one not being able to handle her opinions on this when you then, in turn, stated to question whether she was really a fan of the band and knew the band based on her opinions.

Kinda condescending to insinuate that being against their sexist behavior means she can't be aware of the nature of the band, don't you think? Fans of GN'R encompass everything from those who just like the music but are indifferent to or don't like musicians to those who are primarily interested in the musicians themselves, often in a weird sexual or infatuated way, but less so in the music, and everything in between. It is all on the spectrum of fandom and arguing or dissing, those who are not fans for the same reasons becomes silly. Also, some of us have been fans for many years, that doesn't make us more fans or better fans or purer fans, it just makes us older fans,

What happened?

There was no question in your latest response to @BluegrassBlues. You laughed and said she doesn't know Guns N' Roses and stated that talking to her was like talking to a 12-year-old.

Further to that, I also don't think he cares that much whether he sings it exactly like on a recording. He could of course practise it with the band on rehearsals until he has a consistent way of signing it, but I don't think he necessarily thinks it devalues the shows if he doesn't sing it consistently, at least not to the point where it is worthwhile to attend rehearsals and belt out songs there, which just shortens the period where he can tour before his voice runs out.