SoulMonster

But seriously, why can't GN'R be as prolific as Sun Ra? He released up to 159 albums. Why can't we have that?! Why should the fans of Sun Ra (assuming there is any) have so much more than us? Why? Why? Why oh why!?

Who is brown-nosing GN'R here?

Why are we always comparing to a shit band like Metallica? Who cares how often they take a dump? Let's compare to The Beatles instead! Why can Guns N' Roses release four records in two years as Beatles did? Why? Why? Why? WHY?? *whine and complain a bit more*

Qatar is also moving in the right direction. The FIFA World Cup was a great opportunity to exert some pressure on the regime there, but FIFA botched it. Fucking pathetic FIFA. And yes, it has to happen from within, I am not saying we are going to send rock stars and pop idols to UAE to start demonstrations and raid the palaces But that change from within happens a bit more quickly with some nudging from outside. It can be as simple as an openly gay footballler travelling there and competing there, an artist expressing support for Pride rights at a show there, etc. It is about inspiration and support. And not turning out backs to them. Through such interactions we can help citizens expect and demand reforms. Because through the interfaces they see that it works elsewhere, they see how it could be, they see a future for their country. And because support means something. It means something knowing there are people outside rooting for you, cheering you on, even if that is all we can do.

A single GN'R show won't do much a difference, yes, but culturally boycotting a country or not boycotting a country can make a huge difference in the long run. We have much more ways of impacting the direction of a country if we actually have interacting surfaces than if we decide that "I hate this, we are going to stay far away from this country and let them sort things out themselves." Again, look at Iran, what good has our boycotting of Iran, economic and cultural, done to the people there? And compare to UAE which has developed far in the right direction. UAE is one of the most multicultural places on earth and yes, there are lots of issues there still, but they are moving in the right direction (just like Saudi). It wouldn't have happened so quickly if we had boycotted these countries to the point where there was no business, tourism and culture exchange. That would have created another "us vs them" situation which the regimes would have use for all its worth. And does only the elite benefit from, say, a rock country taking place in their country? Or does the entire people benefit from such normalized relations, especially those who actually go to the show, those who earn money from selling food outside the venue, the taxi drivers that bring people to the event, the hotels that host tourists coming for the event? What about newspapers who report on the foreign, "dangerous rockers" and they lyrics and their image? Can this lead to discussions around the dinner tables? Can these led to youth being inspired? And just imagine what impact it would have if, say, an artist said something gay-friendly during a show in, say, Saudi Arabia. It's a wonderful opportunity to actually do something good, to have an impact. To me this is fairly simple. If we turn away because we are rightfully appalled by how a country behaves, like in relation to gays, we immediately kill off our ability to actually make a difference. It is only through communication (and I use that word widely now), that we can have an impact. Boycotting, especially financial, benefits the elite who then have an outside enemy they can point to to unite their people (which is alpha and omega for terrible regimes) and who can anyways simple continue to be enriched through corruption that circumvents boycots. Look at the efforts some terrible regimes have put in place to avoid "cultural pollution", by restricting Internet and foreign TV broadcasts. They are immensely afraid of their youth comparing outside countries to their own country and saying, "Why can't we have this, too?" because that would inevitably lead to demands of reforms, which in turn can lead to demonstrations and attempt at overtaking the regime. Have you been to Abu Dhabi?

There is clearly a difference between allowing athletes to travel abroad to compete and taking culture to a country.

Of that, I am still undecided.

Cultural boycott of a country because it is homophobic won't do the homosexuals in that country any good at all. Refusing them a cultural event and the opportunity for cultural exchange that will eventually, slowly help that country evolve, will not do any good. It is purely virtue signaling. Just look at Iran. What good has the extensive boycots of that country done? If we truly want to nudge a country in the right direction we need communication and interaction, not exclusion and boycotts. It's got to happen through evolution, not revolution, and that requires long interaction and encouragement of the local people. As for UAE in general and @cineater's comments: I think you might confuse Saudi Arabia with UAE. In my experience, with UAE the distinction isn't between citizens and foreigners but between Muslims and non-Muslims. As for the service people living in poverty and think of you as a rich American, well, that goes for most areas in the world, I assume, and even in America where the equality between poor and rich is absolutely outrageous. If you are worried about human trafficking and poor people being abused, look no further than the farming industry in the USA with child labor, illegal immigrants working unholy hours under terrible conditions, etc.

You sure have a lot of opinion considering you haven't been there. No problem being a female tourist in UAE. I have never been to an expensive whore house, but highly doubt it is anything like Abu Dhabi or any other emirate.

Right, big oversized shirts, but I also think they had these with cutoff sleeves, similar to the one in the gift. And then, of course, the gift hat should have been replaced with the one seen on Reni's head here.

Back in the late 80s or early 90s, I believe, they wore these long, loose shirts with cut off arms, and had these hats down into their eyes. Like, early Stone Roses and that style.

I'm just pissed there is no money and diamonds in the gift package. Here people are registering to the band's forum and all they get in return are a few vinyls of the band's latest singles, a hat and a shirt, and a CD with live music from 1991, all styled to commemorate the band's shows in the UK. Where's the gold?

Isn't the shirt homage to a certain UK style?

Are we surprised?

I saw them in 2005. I was bored.

That's a brilliant album. They should go back to collaborating with Josh Homme.

I think another problem is the near-monopoly of Live Nation. Artists might want to charge less but they need to make deals with Live Nation.

The thing is, as long as people are buying the tickets then they are not priced too high. You could argue they artists should show solidarity with people who can't afford the high ticket prices and accept selling them at a lower price and accept less profits. But that's an argument that doesn't really stop anywhere, because it can always be applied. There will always be people not able to shell out money for tickets. So what's the conclusion, artists should give away tickets? And it is not like back in the 80s where the artists could just break-even on tours because they had their bread and butter income from album sales. Those days are gone. So unfortunately, the dynamics have shifted and concerts are for those with money enough to pay for them. I hate that shift myself, because live music is such an important cultural thing, but it is not entirely the artists' fault, nor is it easy to blame them as long as enough people are actually able to pay the ticket prices. But this hasn't so much to do with the concept of "selling out", I think. Or, maybe that concept has become obsolete in today's music business. As for Hendrix and Lennon and Cobain, who knows if they wouldn't be playing giant tours today with the same ticket prices if they have lived? It is easy to not sell out when you die as young.

I think a pretty reasonable argument for why there can't be lots of fantastic but unknown rock bands around, is the fact that rock isn't dominating the music world now. That doesn't mean there aren't great rock bands around, just that there are less of them now than back in the 70s or 80s. The focus has shifted to other music styles, so obviously there are less rock bands being formed and then obviously there will be less fantastic rock bands.

Sorry for misinterpreting. "Stinking rich"? You do make it seem like being rich comes with some stigma and that it is somehow wrong to want to be even more rich. Actually, they haven't violated many principles, at least not principles they have disclosed previously. There are a few quotes from them about not wanting to "sell out" on merch....from when they were in their 20s. I guess that counts. But nothing much, really. For most part, it is us, the fans, who tend to assign certain principles to them, to expect them to behave in certain ways, like the whole idea of "not selling out", which, it seems to me, just means you are not supposed to do anything that gives you lots of money. We are the ones who hold them to certain principles, and especially Duff who is supposedly "punk" and should therefore, by established rock law, always live in poverty and dirt. Which is funny since many of these artists who succeed at not "selling out", and are poster boys for the whole concept, would LOVE to have success and earn more money. But we are the ones who can't stand our idols succeeding above where we are; we met then when we were all young and idealistic, and we are still stuck in the rut dreaming of success and can't stand them enjoying it. We lie to ourselves saying that if we were in their position we would still have the idealistic mindset of youth and would deny the fans the joy of seeing us play large shows! We would do the show for little or no profit! We would deny them the joy of buying merch or just stick to "cool" merch! And little do we know ourselves. The derision for artists who are successful to the point of becoming rich, amuses me. And again, people change as they get older, and become less naively idealistic and, do I dare say it, get wiser? If they earn more money from playing shows fans want to attend and sell merch people want to buy, then they have my blessing. And I just hope they use the spare cash they get wisely. But regardless, as far as I am concerned, they have earned it.

That's like invert jealousy. They make money by launching products that someone actually wants. They get money, customer gets products they are interested in. It's a win-win. If there is any selfishness in it, it still provides a value to the consumers. But you have decided that the products are worthless and that earning money is a sin so you are against what would otherwise be a totally beneficial transaction with only winners.

Actually, that would be a thousand times cooler and edgy than a lot of the silly crap they churn out. Not that I care. I really don't. I suppose many fans take it personally when their band make decision they wouldn't do. I don't. I just want new music. That's all.

It's definitely all I want. I can go without any more live shows, I couldn't give a rat's ass about merch and commercials and all that stuff. I only care about music.

Yeah, I don't see much different to today. The only thing would maybe be that the estate of GN'R, whoever that might be, might be more interested in releasing the unreleased material than the current band. So for me it might actually be an improvement to today's situation.

More shitty merch than today? Good thing I don't care about merch then.