Gun Shy Assassin

3 hours ago, killuridols said:

This

Fernando looks really cool in that picture. Is he part of Axl's security force?

3 minutes ago, Graeme said:

There are some of us...

To each their own, I guess. Personally, I found the 2009-2014 lineup to be completely boring. Plus, I was beyond tired of hearing the guy in your avatar constantly whine about his employer.

19 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No, I won't. It was disappointingly non-creative. Although we did get a few remixes, a leak of a new song, some Dj solos that were new. But yeah, it became more and more stale and I feared they would never release anything new. But, and the point is, that I fear even more now that we won't get to hear new music. So in the choice between evils I'd prefer a lineup without Slash and Duff.

And then I hope I am completely mistaken and that this lineup will actually prove me wrong. GN'R often proves me wrong

So, just to clarify, you're a GNR fan, but you prefer a GNR lineup that doesn't consist of Slash & Duff? Really?

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Of course everyone is motivated by money, otherwise they'd give their music away for free. But I think an artist should be creative and make new music now and then, and not just repeat playing the same music decade after decade. At some time it loses artistic merit and becomes largely motivated by monetary gains. I always wanted GN'R to head in the direction of new music, I fear -- but am not 100 % certain - that this was a step in the wrong direction. Backwards. Towards pure nostalgia.

"Cash grab" is probably not a good word when I have nothing against musicians earning money. What I object to is more the lack of creating something new. I just don't have a good word for that.

Would you describe the 2009-2014 lineup as being "creative"? IMO, It seems like exactly what we have now but much, much, less interesting.

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I apologize for suggesting that your belief that the early April shows would feature Izzy and Steven based on nothing at all really and despite the promos only featuring Axl, Slash, and Duff and being glaringly devoid of the word "reunion, was a bit stupid of you. I shouldn't have said that and for that I am sorry.

Don't worry about it. I've encountered many posters through the years who, when losing an argument, start to resort to name-calling, etc. I'm not overly bothered by it because I understand that it's a coping mechanism, but it is much more enjoyable to converse with other fans when such tactics aren't utilized.

Thanks again for your apology.

4 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

There's no need to call anyone stupid @SoulMonster.

 

I had some friends with the opposite stance. I asked if they wanted to Guns and the reply was "Nah, I'm good with seeing them the one time unless they ever get Slash back".

So they didn't even know Slash was back even with the marketing. These people are intelligent and they made the flip side of the same mistake.

Either way, personal insults are against the forum rules and you're aware of that so please make your arguments without resorting to that.

Thanks for addressing the insults that are being thrown around, Russtcb. It's a lot more enjoyable to converse with other fans when resulting to such unnecessary tactics is frowned upon. Appreciated ..

I had a couple of friends who didn't realize that Slash was back either - even with the minimal promo that has been seen.

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Of course they are motivated by money, this is a nostalgia cash-grab tour.

 

Ok, so you are finally conceding that this is a "reunion" tour and that Axl's primary motivation is likely money. That's about all that I was trying to get you to concede. And you finally did. Thanks.

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

The way I see it there was some confusion in the beginning when only Axl, Duff and Slash was shown to be part of the lineup. Maybe they could have gone out and stated it would be a hybrid lineup? Maybe they didn't because they were still negotiating with Izzy? Maybe people shouldn't be so stupid as to think it would be a full lineup reunion when only three of the guys were shown?

 

So, what if all someone only saw was the classic lineup billboards that are being posted in major cities and/or the Star Wars advertisement? I never saw any commercial until today (which still doesn't clarify much, IMO). Do you feel that the billboards and Star Wars promo clarify that Izzy and Steven will not be taking part? Both gave myself and others the impression that they would be. And I don't consider myself and others that I know to be "stupid" people, as you have suggested.

2 hours ago, RussTCB said:

I'm not sure what else they could do to let people know who's in the band outside of running TV ads that show each member of the band. 

My thing is this; I'm one of the first people to call Axl & GN'R out when I think they're doing something deceptive or just plain fucking up. I've been very vocal about what a rip-off I think Nightrain is. I've been very critical of pretty much everything that's been done since 2001 for that matter. I just don't think this is one of those times where they need to be called out though. Izzy himself came out and said he woudn't be in Vegas and some people still posted that they were disappointed that he didn't show up. How is that GN'Rs fault? 

Honestly, there's no way for any of us to know if they are or are not saying anything because they think it'll hurt sales. Personally, I like to think that they aren't saying anything because they don't need to. I get the other side of that argument though, so that's why I just kinda bowed out of the thread. Because there's just no way for any of us to know for sure one way or the other.

Fair enough, I suppose. I agree that it's not possible to say with certainty what the band's motivation is, although I believe $$$ is probably driving a lot of the decision making. My point of contention is with those who are insisting that it's clear as day who's in this lineup (from a general public perspective), and that one would have to be "stupid" to not know who's in or who's out. I'm trying to understand the agendas of those who are attempting to portray the narrative that GNR were "very clear" about who would be part of the touring lineup and who wouldn't.

With that said, there are things that the band (Axl) could have done to let their fans and the GP know who "exactly" the lineup would consist of. In fact, one interview (either print or tv) where Axl clarified who was in and who was out would have sufficed, IMO. To me, the commercial that you are speaking of is pretty vague and leaves a lot to the imagination, which I'm sure Axl doesn't mind because, let's face it, the more people think that this is a full-reunion, the more tickets will sell.

If Axl doesn't want to be bothered with questions from reputable tabloids, he could have done another Del interview, where he actually clarified the lineup, and it would have spread to RS, Spin, Classic Rock etc. by the following morning. The question is, why didn't he take that more direct, leave nothing to the imagination route? The only logical explanation that I can come up with is $$$$.

6 minutes ago, tsinindy said:

Great...now tell me how it isn't "huge" already and I think you'll realize it obviously isn't a "necessity" to have them back.

NOTE:. I'd love to have both back, so don't go there.  Just pointing out that them being back doesn't appear to be a necessity for this to be huge as it already is.

With all due respect, the band has played Vegas, Coachella, and Mexico City. Of course, all that is needed for any of those specific locations is for Slash to be back in the fold. Let's see if they are just as huge while playing markets like Pittsburgh (which i will be present for), Detroit, and wherever they're playing in Ohio. You know, other non-festivals and other non-sin cities.

8 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

The question wasn't who wants to call it a reunion tour or not, the question was whether or not it's being marketed as "the original 5 guys" to get more money out of an unsuspecting public. The latter being untrue due to TV ads flat out showing Axl, Slash & Duff along with the rest of the current lineup. 

I thought the question was, "is this being marketed as a reunion". I've never seen any tv ads, and I suspect others may not have as well. Given that they are placing billboards in all major cities with the classic lineup logo, and billing it as "for the first time together in 23 years", couldn't you see how much of the general public might think this is a full reunion of the classic lineup? I'm not talking about obsessives, such as ourselves, who frequent forums and discuss every aspect of the band, I'm talking specifically about the GP. Do you think most of the GP realize that it's been 26 years since Steven's been in the band and not "23 years"? I don't. Only an obsessive knows those type of details.

I can tell you that I have numerous friends and co-workers who thought that this "reunion" consisted of all classic lineup members. That's a fact. IMO, the band has done very little to minimize this expectation. Who knows .. maybe this is one of the reasons why Axl pulled out of Kimmel at the 11th hour. Maybe, after consideration, he thought, "why say something that may hurt ticket sales". It's possible ..

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I have never disagree with the fact that you can use the term reunion for two or three guys coming back together again Have you seriously not understood throughout all these posts that I have been talking about the BAND and not just Axl, Slash and Duff? 

Ok, so now you finally agree that this is, in fact, a "reunion". Finally .. and it only took explaining it to you 15-20 times. That's ok. Everyone learns and comprehends at a different pace.

So, now that everyone is onboard with this being a "reunion" tour, I guess we can continue discussing 'where's Izzy' (and Steven) - and why the two are a necessity for this reunion tour to be huge.

5 hours ago, madison said:

I find it amusing to watch certain people desperately trying to claim this tour isn't being promoted as a reunion tour.  We have huge billboards and virtually every TV ad screaming out to the great unwashed - "for the first time in 23 years … … bang!"  Heck, even the name of the tour - "Not in this lifetime" - is a play on Axl's own response to a REUNION.   Yet, certain people try to pretend this isn't the case.    

I guess it's tough to admit that our favorite band is milking the "reunion" angle in order to charge huge prices at stadium-sized venues. We all know that Axl's replacement band could never sell out stadiums or charge these kinds of prices.  But a reunion of the classic lineup that created the music that made GNR the biggest band on the planet?  Absolutely. 

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong - I like Richard and think he's a good musician. And I'd have no problem with him playing some CD songs on this tour - but only AFTER all of the original guys are onboard - you know, the ones who actually wrote and CREATED the music that brought GNR to the top of the music world. 

There's absolutely no question this tour is being marketed as a reunion. So, the real question people should be asking is - why?  Is it just a cash grab and the "big three" didn't want to share the cash equally with the Izzy, Steven and Matt? I hope that's not the reason.

 

 

 

And before the great "non-reunion" crusaders come barreling in with claims - "Oh, but that's the promoters and marketers - that's not Axl - he has nothing to do with the way the tour is being promoted' - Please …. Axl is a guy who micromanages everything in his band and life. So, if you think for a second he knows nothing about it or that he didn't sign off on it, then think again. Geesh.

 

As for the name-calling and other juvenile comments that have been hurled at myself and others who favor a full reunion, give it a rest.  … Many of us watched with great sadness the tragic deaths of some huge icons in the music world in the past year - Prince, Scott, Bowie and Lemmy. Who would have thought Prince - of all people - would have died at the age of 57?  We look at this - and we see how lucky we are that all of the original members of GNR are still with us - and all want to be part of this reunion.  Many of us who have been following the band from day one have always dreamed of seeing the original guys back on a stage together - and now that it's so close, we're hoping it becomes a reality - sooner rather than later - because we don't know if they'll all be alive in a year or even six months from now.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very well said, madison. I couldn't agree more.

4 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Are you seriously arguing that a reunion could be to combine new components into something? "Being brought together again" implies it is the same components that has come together again.

Hey, I had to replace the car clutch as the repairs last week. They put in a new one, so I guess the car has been reunited now. Duh.

Who said anything about new components? Why do you find it necessary to twist words or make up things entirely? When DJ and BBF left, the band was no longer "whole". To make the band whole once again, Axl decided for his own reasons, which were likely mostly financial, to bring back 2 other hall of fame all-stars that the world has been wanting to see perform together for decades.

It's becoming apparent that you are either failing to comprehend the obvious, or perhaps you're just trolling me. You clearly stated that you are a stickler for precision. I provide you with a textbook definition of the word "reunion" and you (not even cleverly) attempt to modify the definition of the word to further support your own obvious biases. The term reunion applies to any two (or more) people that are brought together again after a separation. This is indisputable. Should you continue to disagree, you must not be this stickler for precision that you claimed to be after all. 

If Steven was no way involved with any upcoming shows, I think he'd be talking about it by now. The fact that he hasn't is great news, IMO.

7 minutes ago, GNRfan2008 said:

With the amount of money they are making, they can afford to hire professional bodyguards/babysitters for him. Have his wife there as well to keep him from relapsing. There is no doubt Steven Adler is the only drummer in the world who plays the Appetite songs with the right groove and feel.

After seeing Frank play the AFD songs in Vegas, I can definitely attest to this. If the band wants to give their fan base a truly memorable experience, they'll do whatever is necessary to get Steven back and keep him in the fold. While in Vegas, I met numerous Guns' fans and all of them vocalized being pretty bummed that Steven and Izzy weren't there. Honestly, I was glad to hear that I wasn't the only one who felt that Frank's playing ruined numerous AFD songs.

1 hour ago, Gun Shy Assassin said:

 

Thanks for posting. Steven looks great. I really hope that we see him out on tour with Guns N Roses soon. Definitely a missing ingredient.

That would be great if Steven could get healthy and replace Frank as the GNR drummer. Get Izzy involved too and this whole thing becomes much more interesting.

34 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Haha, you are killing me No, the relevant part of the definition implies that the same components are coming back together again as a unified whole.

Where in the definition does it say the "same" componets? Maybe it's just me, but I thought you were being sincere when you said that you care about being precise?

re·un·ion

the action of being brought together again as a unified whole.

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Hahah, no, the tectbook definition includes the case where it refers to the bringing together of something to make it whole again, which is the part of the definition that is applicable to us, but which you repeatedly left out while picking cherries.

He agreed to have Slash and Duff back in the band, yes. Exactly what the motives for this were, is unknown to me. Here are some alternatives: more money, grudge ended, needed new band members, easier to release new material, giving the fans what they want, and probably many more. I will not claim to know the reason, but I would be surprised if it doesn't include a combination of at least some of these possible explanations.

Right .. the band had open vacancies ... and in order to make that band "whole", he opted to reunite with Slash and Duff. That made the band "whole" again, at least as far as the textbook definition of the word "reunion" is concerned.

13 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No, it doesn't fit with the normal understanding of what is meant with a reunion in music That is why a lot of media now, as they start to realize that Melissa wan't actually in GN'R back in the 80s or early 90s (she was possibly not even born then), start referring to it as a semi-reunion and similar things that suggest that what we have isn't a real reunion.

 

You clearly stated that you're only interested in being "precise". I gave you the textbook definition of the word "reunion" and you are arguing against it? That seems contradictory to what you previously stated.

We can continue with the play on words all day, but the reality is, Axl agreed to a reunion, and further agreed to split the touring royalties with the other alumni. If he was successful without the other 2 guys that he hated for years (and even forecasted his own death before playing with one of them), would it seem logical that he would have done this? Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely happy that Slash and Duff are back, like I said, it's the first time I've been interested in the band since 1996, but why he chose to reunite (and the fact that he did reunite) should be pretty blatantly obvious.

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

How many times do you want me to comment on this? I have already said that when we speak of a music reunion, we tend to mean a reunion of a full lineup. Btw, if you had posted the WHOLE definition (hah) you would have seen the bolded and underscored part which is relevant to band reunions::

1. an instance of two or more people coming together again after a period of separation.

   "she had a tearful reunion with her parents"

   • a social gathering attended by members of a group of people who have not seen each other for some time.

     "a school reunion"
   • the action of being brought together again as a unified whole.

     "the reunion of East and West Germany"

The part that you bolded is irrelevant because it is still applicable even if Slash (or Duff) was the only person brought back. The term "reunion" can certainly apply to 2 individuals only. Somehow I think you probably know this, but for whatever reason, it doesn't fit the narrative that you seek.

31 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't refer to it as a reunion because I am a schtickler for precision. This simply isn't a band reunion and it makes little sense to me to refer to it as a reunion between individuals.

 

If people prefer to call it anything else, then I feel that is more motivated by agendas and biases than actually wanting to be precise.

Since you're a schtickler for precision, I thought I'd re-post the definition of the word "reunion". I figured someone who is a schtickler for accuracy - and who doesn't have a personal bias and agenda - would appreciate someone spelling out the textbook definition. Can't get much more "precise" than this!

13 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

 

My thing is this: GNRs marketing (all the things I listed)  has made it clear who's in the band. Who should they have to come out and clarify anything?

 

You say that GNR's marketing has consisted of Star War trailers and billboard signs. I have seen both, and neither appear to commit to any certain members being there or not being there. In fact, one could argue that the "classic logo" could be misleading, if this isn't a "reunion" as some of you claim. If there was some specific marketing (by the band) that made it crystal clear who would be taking part, I must have missed it. You mentioned commercials .. I haven't seen any. Did these commercials specify that instead of Izzy & Steve, we'd be getting the other 2 instead?