justynius

6 hours ago, PatrickS77 said:

Well, ownership would be consequential to GNR if they have to ask Kat for permission to do anything with the photos, outside the website or if she has the right to veto whatever they want to do with it. Or if Kat wants to do something with their images, without having to ask them. Whether they want to use it for a pornography video or political propaganda (really??) should be inconsequential to the photographer, as the persons in the picture gets associated supporting that. Not the photgrapher.

All of that can (and should) be negotiated and documented in a good contract, it doesn't require ownership. Also, when I criticize the arrangements related to these photographs, it doesn't just fall on Fernando - Kat was the one signing the contracts and working under the informal arrangements. Not sure if she was inexperienced on the business side or agreeing to shit out of concern that the gig would go to someone else, but the conditions described in the lawsuit are substandard to say the least. It is unusual to not be better protected up front.

The pornography / political propaganda were just extreme examples of what a photographer may not like, wasn't implying GN'R specifically might want to do that. Most professional photographers view their work as "art" and it is a big deal to them for their photographs to not be disparaged in that way. You are correct that GN'R would also want to negotiate how Kat would be allowed to use the images, if at all, that would/should absolutely be in precise detail in the contract.

3 hours ago, PatrickS77 said:

There was a contract in the beginning that states that GNR is the owner. Why would anyone assume they would suddenly give her ownership? Her continued work is just a continuation of what was originally agreed in written form. Of course it is dumb on GNR's part to not have a contract. I guess that's where Fernando's "but you're family" comes into play. In fact, they are not family. And really, not giving her credit (as in mentioning who took the pic is one thing), claiming there is unauthorized use, when they paid her to do the photos and gave her unprecedented access to do so, is another. But we do seem to agree that the harassment issue was thrown in there to have more leverage against them to make them settle.

It seems most of this was done very unprofessionally so who knows what the actual contractual language says, but the photographer would typically retain ownership/copyright to the work and the employer would be granted authorization for specific uses. So, for example, GN'R could use the photographs for their website or advertisements but they could not use them in a pornography video or political propaganda. Either way, ownership of the photographs is inconsequential to GN'R outside of the distribution rights which could be controlled simply with a well written contract. In my view, it would be foolish to go to battle over these petty photography issues and still lose the war due to the mountains of evidence on the more serious harassment allegations.

12 hours ago, Blackstar said:

I don't interpret the "I was okay with it" as consent or that that particular sexual activity was what she wanted. She describes being scared and crying. She was "okay with it" afterwards: it wasn't the kind of sex she consented to, but she settled for it because she wanted Axl. Then they had more sex and then he apologized to her.

Consent does not require direct verbal communication. Her own published words reiterate through multiple events in the night how much she "wanted" Axl and the actions she took to make that happen, then she directly specifies she was okay with what happened because she was finally getting what she wanted. You're gonna have a very tough time selling that as an unwilling participant.

Now she does consistently say in every version of the story that she only wanted sex with Axl and was unquestionably against the prospect of group sex, there is valid evidence she was against that activity. But every version also implies she did not actually participate in the group sex, let alone having been forced to. Even further, if the events described are true then they disbanded that activity specifically in respect to her lack of consent.

12 hours ago, Blackstar said:

Now in the documentary it's a bit different: she said Axl apologized to her for physically hurting her and became gentle with her before any sexual activity occurred. So in this version, although she can still claim that she didn't consent and was just terrified as a result of the physical violence, it's more hazy.

That is her problem - was she lying in the book, was she lying in the documentary, or is she lying now? It will be challenging enough to prove Axl was even in the room 35 years after the fact. It will be nearly impossible to find evidence that supports her current narrative while not directly leading to "I was okay with this because ... now I was finally getting him."

4 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

In the book the physical assault is part of the sexual assault: she's pulled by the hair and dragged into the bedroom to be sexually assaulted. Someone is not get dragged violently to have consensual sex. The two are interrelated. And then the sexual assault is followed by consensual sex.

Anyway, all this is just in theory, because it's highly unlikely that Riki Racthman will confirm her story. He either won't testify at all (more likely) or, if he testifies, he'll say he doesn't remember or he'll support Axl.

In the book, she goes out of her way to directly say the sexual activity was welcome. She needs to prove her written description of the events behind that locked door were false. Unless she was lying about the extent of Rikki’s involvement, his testimony only accomplishes the opposite. 

11 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

It's probability: if her allegation about the physical assault that preceded the sexual assault is confirmed, that gives more credence to her allegation about the sexual assault.

Does it really though? Rikki’s testimony can reinforce the events described in the book, a consensual sexual encounter. She needs evidence/testimony that disproves her own words, and I’m not sure that exists. This is the hole she’s dug.

2 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

I'm not an expert either, but I guess it depends on whether the physical assault is directly connected to the sexual assault, and in this case it is.

Even if that's true - and I don't see anything in the act implying it is - you'd still need success on the sexual assault allegations, the physical assault wouldn't stand on its own. By her own admission, "Axl slams the door and locks it. The other girl is gone. Rikki’s in the other room." Unless they try claiming the book is false, Rikki can't testify to witnessing a sexual assault.

35 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

According to her account, Riki Racthman witnessed at least the beginning of the physical assault (and did nothing), so if he supports her story he can confirm at least that part.

He probably won't testify at all though. The jurisdiction of the court is in New York and I think he would have to be there or in close distance for the subpoena to be served. But he doesn't live there, so unless he visits NY and is located or wants to testify, he doesn't have to.

The language in the NY Adult Survivors Act is pretty specific to sexual misconduct. I would expect statute of limitations to be expired for allegations of physical assault related to the hairpulling. Definitely not a legal expert though, and Rikki's testimony would at least lend credibility to her story. However, as you said, can't see him being very eager to step in this pile of shit, and even if he's served he can probably say with honesty that he doesn't remember an event from 34 years ago.

39 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Again, neither I nor anyone else here, as far as I can tell, has confidently asserted that the allegations are true. You're arguing a strawman.

I was responding to your post claiming there's "not proof it's a lie." That's a higher threshold than they need to meet. The defense does not need to prove the story is a lie, only that her side has failed to provide sufficient evidence it is true.

42 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Saying that you were, at one time in the past, okay with being assaulted because you were starstruck, does not make it no longer assault.

Rough sex in itself is not sexual assault. Her own published words are credible evidence the alleged encounter was consensual.

43 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Also, without the full context of those quotes within the book, it is flippant at best, irresponsible at worst, to use them in such a way.

Now you're the one grasping at straws. Below is the full context. What does this change?

I’m crying and bleeding. Axl slams the door and locks it. The other girl is gone. Rikki’s in the other room. And I lay there. And he fucked me, anally. And I could handle it because he wasn’t too big. Weirdly enough, I was okay with this. I had wanted to be with him since the minute I’d first laid eyes on him, and now I was getting him. Once he was done he untied me and we fucked around some more. I remember going down on him and sticking my finger in his ass and he really wanted that, he really got off on that. That’s what made him come.

15 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Did I say that it was proven true? No. The people talking confidently like that are the ones saying inconsistencies disprove the claims.

The burden of the lawsuit is to prove it is true. Axl is not suing her for libel, she is suing him for assault. The defense does not need to prove the assault did not occur, only that her side failed to provide sufficient evidence that it did.

27 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Inconsistencies are not erroneous testimony.

Inconsistencies are by definition erroneous testimony. If she presents one timeline, then makes a subsequent statement that is not possible to line up with it, one (or both) of those statements must be in error. 

36 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

"He said she said" is the typical form of these kind of charges, by their nature. Absent a rape kit, what direct physical evidence would there be? That tells us nothing about the credibility.

A good start would be not publishing, direct quote, "Weirdly enough, I was okay with this. I had wanted to be with him since the minute I’d first laid eyes on him, and now I was getting him."

1 hour ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Claiming that she's "trying to turn this into a payday" is baseless speculation that really belies your lack of impartiality here. Are families that sue Monsanto for poisoning their kids just "seeking a payday"?

It is not baseless speculation, it's a literal fact. She's spent the last twenty years cashing in on this (and other) sexual encounters with celebrities.

34 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

Once again, THEY PAID HER TO MAKE PHOTOS FOR THEM. They took her out on “364 shows or 30 ‘legs’” for what? For her to walk away, claiming and demanding sole ownership of the photos and for them to have nothing?? Get real. I agree with the bolded.

Also she didn't wait to sue. She apparantly tried to sue already at the beginning of the year and somehow that got botched up.

It directly says in the lawsuit that there were no written contracts. Unless/until we hear otherwise, there's no reason to suspect this is false. Employment alone does not permit unauthorized/uncredited use, and there would need to be very specific contractual language for her to fully relinquish ownership and especially authorship.

Ultimately, the financial value of the photographs is almost certainly insignificant to GN'R; ownership only matters in that it grants them control over distribution. You don't need ownership for that, they can easily reach an agreement over distribution authorization with a valid written agreement. Then Kat needs to comply with those terms or it is them suing her. Work out these petty issues with the photographs and the real dynamite - the harassment allegations - go away.

12 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Regardless, inconsistencies in a story that happened 30+ years ago is not proof it's a lie. Anybody suggesting that is just grasping at straws.

The problem with that line of thinking is the defense doesn't even really need to prove it is a lie, they just need to show the plaintiff has failed the burden of proving it's *true* - otherwise, anyone can just make up baseless accusations about anyone else. Her published words do more to contradict the allegations than support, and demonstrate a history of trying to turn this into a payday. By her own admission, the other people were outside the room when the supposed 'assault' occurred, so anything they can offer (if they get involved at all) is speculative at best. There's obviously no DNA or police report. Her verbal recollection is the beginning and end of proof for this lawsuit, and when inconsistencies emerge then even that becomes erroneous testimony. 

On 11/19/2023 at 8:56 AM, PatrickS77 said:

Yeah, we will see how much of what he supposedly said or did she really can back up. Her wanting sole ownership of photos GNR paid to produce and the fact she's suing after they fired her/let her go, is a red flag to me. Period. Don't care what you all think.

She also waited until after the tour finished so as to not hurt the band, and if the timeline of events is true she endured a lot of shit over several years before finally filing the lawsuit. My gut reading of all this is that she's not out for blood or a payday.

I don't think the (amount of) money is that important to her, and the alleged harassment is more of an annoyance than something she would have sued over in itself. GN'R wanted to control how their images were used, and this inadvertedly created a situation where she felt disrespected as an artist - that's what this is about, acknowledging professional photography as a legitimate art form and assigning appropriate credit to the artist.

The harassment accusations are the incendiary part of all this, but she really just threw those in there to get them to take this seriously. I think if they show *genuine* remorse for the way the photography was handled and work out a way to acknowledge her work (plus get Fernando to commit to chill the fuck out), she'd be open to having all this go away and even continuing a working partnership. It should be possible to peacefully resolve this without much of a cost to the band, and everything goes to shit if they take this to trial and lose. There are times to go to war, but sometimes there's better outcomes in recognizing the other side has a point and mending fences.

31 minutes ago, gnfnr2k said:

The defense will have it easy.

The defense has two different examples of this women saying her hooking up with Axl was consensual back in the day.  Once in a video and another in her book. Now she is changing her story.  She is going to have to explain why she claimed it was consensual back then and not now. it sounds like buyers remorse now, and its even shadier that she is filing right before the statute of limitations runs out. It looks like a money grab

I agree, if there's nothing else besides the he said she said from over 30 years ago and her own published words, then Axl should take this all the way thru trial and make her reimburse his legal fees when she loses. If he settles for even a buck to a case this weak, then it opens the door for him to be the piggy bank for every other woman he's had any kind of interaction with over the years.

The Fernando situation is a bit trickier. There appears to be credible evidence, and a lot of it. Unless they can prove it is fake - and we don't know shit, perhaps it is fake - then I think they need to start looking into how they can make this right. Based on what we know so far, I don't see this turning out well and I say that as a (mostly) Team Brazil supporter. Taking down the evidence is their only line of defense; Kat's actions/history and verbal testimony with no hard evidence are absolutely meaningless if they do not adequately address the evidence referenced in the lawsuit.

On 5/5/2023 at 3:05 AM, BucketEgg said:

( i'm trying to minimise my interactions with this website for a while because I've feel like i've become rather unfocused over the past few days, but you just had to go ahead and write this fabulous thing! )

I would like to say thank you for taking out the time to write out your interpretation of the lyrics piece by piece. I like how you pointed out potential references to other literature and songs and background knowledge, and the way you try to navigate and talk about the ambiguity in some parts of the song. Your interpretation has brought a lot more clarity to lines that had confused me. ( in school, I've always hated analysing poetry myself because I often had trouble discerning why the writer wrote what they wrote, but it was always satisfying to hear someone else talk about how stuff fit together.) Your writeup is definitely the most complete piece-by-piece analysis on Prostitute's lyrics I've come across online.

I'm glad some of that resonated with you. Always makes the effort feel more worthwhile when it has a positive effect.

Below is a different analysis I did on Sweet Child O' Mine many years ago that you might enjoy too. I feel like the Prostitute reading hit on a lot of key points but was still a bit clunky. However, years later I'm still fully convinced this one is spot on...

Many listeners think SCOM is a simple love ballad that transitions into aggressive heavy metal for no apparent reason. If you follow the language choices, however, you'll see that the song is less about love for a girl than it is the very, very broken mind of the guy.

The first verse reveals the girl is only important to the song in that her childlike physical features remind the speaker of his own childhood, and the last line foreshadows something is up because remembering his childhood makes him want to cry. In the second verse, the girl's physical features that were earlier related to the speaker's childhood are now related to negative metaphors, such as rain, pain, and hiding from thunder and rain. The song isn't so much about the speaker being the age of a child, than the *mentality* of a child. As a child, he was protected from the realities of cold and darkness in the world (in some ways, an understanding of evil/abuse and death) but an awareness of them kept creeping in and was something he needed to hide from. He created psychological barriers, which ultimately caused the chaos his mind is in as an adult. This is why the simple riff of the first part (which I think is intended to resemble carousel music or an ice cream truck) develops into the chaotic heavy metal of the second part. Also, you'll notice the rhyme scheme of the second verse sounds normal out loud, but completely breaks away from the first verse if you write it out on paper.

Thus, we're left with nothing but the rhetorical "Where do we go?" repeated over and over again. I know this is VERY similar to the end of the first part of the musical Hair and I haven't studied that closely enough to really analyze any connection, but looking just within the context of SCOM as a stand-alone song I'd say it could have two meanings. The first would be how Avenged Sevenfold alludes to it in Seize the Day: where do we go when we die. The speaker tries to hide in the childhood ignorance of death with promise of your soul going elsewhere afterward. That he would *pray* for the thunder and rain to pass by would be a further connection to spirituality/religion as the escape.

But there's also a far darker interpretation, which seems to be a better fit to the song. The speaker was psychologically fucked up in his childhood, and the line is repeated over and over because there's NOWHERE you can go when you're mentally trapped in that state of consciousness. Furthermore, since it is "where do WE go?", it foreshadows that the speaker's association of the girl with his own childhood means the mindfuck will cause him to be abusive until she is mentally trapped in the same way. Like a cyclical curse in a Greek tragedy, victim is destined to become victimizer in a neverending, inescapable downward spiral. So the speaker in SCOM has been literally 'caught in the rye', trapped in the illusory world of childhood, and the consequence is the hell his mind has become.

On 4/26/2023 at 4:23 AM, BucketEgg said:

I don't really think it's the meaning Axl had in mind when writing this, but maybe this song is referencing religion or religious figures, and the cusp between believing in something, and leaving it for good. That's the feeling I get when reading it chunked. What first nudged me into interpreting the song is this way was reading the lines about “those you could not save”, “the hearts of the ones that you would not save”. What kind of person is out there having to save people’s hearts specifically? So I thought it might have been referencing saviour figures you might find in a religion. And then I tried seeing the rest of the song under a religious interpretation, to see if it worked.

This response is a little late, took me some time to collect my thoughts before chiming in. Let me start off by saying I applaud you for posting this, it takes a thick skin to throw your ideas out to the wolves here. I think many GN'R songs have lyrics worth digging into, and it provokes quality discussion at a time when there's not much else going on - not to mention, this type of discourse advances everyone's understanding of the songs and the band.

Unfortunately, my opinion is your analysis wandered a bit too far off course. 'Saved' is definitely a word with religious and specifically Christian connotations. However, it also has many other common uses. It seems like you're fixating on this one word and putting the entire song under that lens, when there's not much else in the lyrics pointing toward religion. The lyrics are your guide - you don't want to stray too far from what they directly support, or else you're basically just making stuff up that is not connected to the actual song.

As you aptly observed, on a literal level this song is a direct dialogue between two characters, who I will refer to as the prostitute and the prostitute's lover. If you want to achieve a better understanding, I'd suggest starting with the banter and lyrical wordplay going on, that is a challenge in itself. The prostitute kind of speaks in riddles, possibly unreliably, and some of the verses only make sense if you tie them back to a noun in the previous verse. Making things even more confusing, I believe several of the you's are the prostitute repeating things said towards them (i.e. *not* the prostitute addressing the lover). So the challenge is to decipher the literal conversation between the two characters, and once that's established you can start looking into more figurative applications to Axl and GN'R.

Below is my close reading of it. Just my interpretations, might be completely off base, but I hope some of this connects with you as you listen to the song over the years.

Seems like forever and a day
If my intentions are misunderstood
Please be kind
I've done all I should

"Forever and a day" is a phrase originally credited to Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew, which is about a newly married man 'taming' his rebellious, outspoken bride into being a subservient and obedient wife.  Axl probably didn't have that in mind when he chose to open with this phrase, but if he did then it would be a humorous allusion for his experiences in the music industry.

I'm more confident that 'intentions' was a deliberate word choice. It's important to note Prostitute dates back to the 1990's, when the album was going to be called 2000 Intentions. So 'intentions' is likely a retrospective nod to the songs themselves - irrespective of placement, this song is addressing the listener once they've finished the album.

On a more surface level, these lines introduce the principal topic of the song. The prostitute is a character who we later learn has provided love and affection - and the person they're speaking to has questioned the sincerity behind it. Was this motivated out of genuine love, or were they means to personal gain?

I won't ask of you
What I would not do
Oh, I saw the damage in you
My fortunate one
The envy of youth

For me, the line 'envy of youth' is the key to the song. If this story is a tragedy, then this character trait is the tragic flaw that set everything in motion. But more importantly, Axl leaves us with some poetic ambiguity with the delivery of that word choice. Is this an older person envious of the young? Or is it attributing envy as a trait of young people? Or is he actually addressing envy itself as an anthropomorphic being similar to a Greek god? You can make an argument that any of these work with the lyric structure.

Why would they tell me
To please those that laugh
In my face
When all of the reasons they've taught us
Fall over themselves
To give way

Ultimately, I don't think these lines are too important, though they do provide some interesting background on the prostitute. 'They' tell the prostitute to please the clients and 'they' taught the reasons to do so, this is not something that the prostitute originally pursued on their own. Since the prostitute realizes those actions 'fall over themselves', we can also conclude a change has occurred and the prostitute is not doing what 'they' want anymore.

It's not a question
Whether my heart is true
Streamlined
I had to pull through

The big takeaway here is that the song is not about *if* the speaker was a prostitute. The question of whether they are or are not doesn't matter. It's easy to get distracted by the 'misunderstood' lines and believe they're trying to deny it. They're not! Like an object streamlined through water, they 'gave way' to the natural flow of least resistance, their past was what they needed to do to get by.

Look for a new
Beginning on you
Oh, I got a message for you
Up and away
It's what I've got to do
Forgive what you have
For what you might lose

To paraphrase, this is a genuine and necessary new beginning, giving up the past in order to reclaim what would have been lost (presumably by carrying on the old ways). The relationship between the prostitute and their lover (or figuratively, Axl's new start with Chinese Democracy) is their way of escaping (and interestingly, forgiving) the misfortune of their past.

"Forgive what you have / For what you might lose" could have two applications. This could be a reference to the 'what I gotta do'; in other words, HOW the prostitute achieves the new beginning they're pursuing. Or it could be an entirely separate command towards the lover, i.e. if they can't forgive and forget the imperfect past of the prostitute, then they risk losing the love they currently share.

What would you say
If I told you that I'm to blame
And what would you do
If I had to deny your name
Where would you go
If I told you "I love you" and then walked away
N' who should I turn to
If not for the ones that you could not save

The You's and I's are all over the place, making this a tough one to follow. Our knowledge of the history surrounding the release of Chinese Democracy helps put us on track though. I think the easiest way to look at this is Axl saying to put yourself in his shoes, how would you have responded to the situations he went through....

• "If told you that I'm to blame": Axl being accused of singular responsibility for the breakup of the old lineup, perhaps with a subtle allusion to the "I know that you can love me / When there's no one left to blame" in November Rain
• "If I had to deny your name": People saying, rightly or wrongly, that the Chinese Democracy lineup is not Guns N' Roses. This could also be a rejection/breakup of a marriage, i.e. the wife denying the husband's last name.
• "If I told you I love you and then walked away": Pretty self explanatory reference to the old members leaving, with "Where would you go" as a definitely-not-subtle allusion to SCOM.
• "If not for the ones you could not save": The 'who should I turn to' would be the replacements Axl brought in to replace the 'ones you (he) could not save' from leaving the band.

I told you
When I found you
If there were doubts you
Should be careful and unafraid
Now they surround you
All that amounts to
Is love that you fed by perversion and pain

Many people assume 'perversion and pain' is attributed to the prostitute. I think this is actually attributed to the lover who they are talking to. The 'doubts' are the recipient doubting the authenticity of the (former?) prostitute's love. Thus, the genuine love provided by the prostitute is perverted by the recipient's doubt into an act of greed and envy.

So if my affections
Are misunderstood

The immediate thing to jump out here is that 'intentions' is now replaced with 'affections'. The word swap could be using each song as a metaphoric act of physical affection. However, another possibility is in spy talk - the code for someone who's been turned is that they're sick or affected (and if someone was affected but is now recovered, I guess that makes them BETTER). Thus, if the listener is not buying it and still believes the speaker is up to prostitution (i.e. affected), then each act/song could be an 'affection'.

And you decide
I'm up to no good
Don't ask me to
Enjoy them
Just for you

Pretty self explanatory here - if the lover still thinks the prostitute is after personal gain, don't ask them to fake enjoying the physical love.

Ask yourself
Why I would choose
To prostitute myself
To live with fortune and shame
When you should have turned to the hearts of the ones
That you would not save
I told you
When I found you
All that amounts to
Is love that you fed by perversion and pain

There is where we can return to my prior comments regarding the multiple potential contexts to 'envy of youth'. Up until now, the song has leaned toward the first way to look at it: the 'damage' is an older person envying the young. Figuratively, this would be the Chinese Democracy effort trying to gain what the original/younger GN'R lineup had.

These lines, however, are saying instead of putting Chinese Democracy under the microscope, take a look at the alternative (of continuing the old lineup) - they were the ones with an insatiable envy back when GN'R was young. Before you think this is an unfair assessment, let's digress for a second and bring up Pretty Tied Up. The first verse is about the literal prostitute, the second verse is about the rock band (which is obviously GN'R), the choruses connect the metaphoric overlap between the two. Can't get any more direct than that! This was written by Izzy, but the rest of the members chose to record and publish it - so I don't think any of them were in disagreement about what they were becoming. The UYI era band achieved historic commercial success and was a guarantee to continue doing so, continuing that downward path would have been the real act of prostitution.

This song obviously does not leave the old lineup in a very positive light. 15 years after the song was officially released (and probably 25+ years after it was written), things have changed quite a bit. Most of the Chinese Democracy lineup disbanded, the reunion did occur. Does that mean this song is a waste or that the reunion is a sellout? I don't think so. Throughout the songs on Chinese Democracy, Axl leaves the door open for the old members, it's "never too late". There is an important change at the end of Prostitute, now he refers to "the HEARTS of the ones that you would not save." The people are not permanently irredeemable, their hearts/actions are the problem and those can definitely be changed. The reunion was only going to happen under the right conditions, which might be the main reason it took until 2016. New music would certainly be nice, but beyond that we've seen a more stable, professional, and focused lineup than perhaps any other time in the band's history. (Most of) the people might be the same, but this is definitely not the same band that was going up in smoke in Pretty Tied Up.

Get in the Ring and Back Off Bitch. I believe their reason for not playing these in the old days was because it would get the crowd too worked up. Now that most of the fans are late 30's and older, I don't think they have as much to worry about. Out Ta Get Me is always a great performance and these would have the same kind of energy.

I'd also like them to let Dizzy play Crestfallen like they used to have Tommy play Motivation. That song is fucking epic and should work well live.

Open with Get in the Ring

Replace Slither with Fall to Pieces to mix things up

Replace Wichita Lineman with Since I Don't Have You

Add Back Off Bitch around the middle of the set

Mammoth is done. Great opening act, good fit a for GN’R concert

Mammoth just finished. Great opening act, good fit a for GN’R concert

1 hour ago, janrichmond said:

Thank you for helping on all other nights. I'm usually asleep but I do notice the next day how many streams you post 

Who's volunteering for stream search?

On my way over now, I’ll try to post if I can

"Just another jam from our endless trove of love songs"

Did anyone else notice the amplitude range for the KOHD acoustic leak is much lower for the right channel than the left? I balanced them out with an audio editor and it seems to sound much, much better.

Not sure if this was deliberate or a mistake when the file was created. Every other leak I opened in the editor was already balanced between both channels.

Must admit... the first verse had me thinking they were just fucking around with this, possibly while drunk. Lyrics are probably/hopefully not complete, and pretty sure the stumble around the 2:24 mark is him forgetting the words or losing his breath and not intended to be part of the final song. With that said, I think this has the potential to be the best unheard song from this round of leaks. Great chorus, EPIC peak, catchy rhythm, and really showcases Axl's vocals. This is also one of the few new GN'R songs I could see crossing into pop radio.

As far as Slash not liking it, keep in mind this is a guy who apparently enjoyed collaborating with Lenny Kravitz. He's also been thru a bunch of successes and failures doing things his own way, so he's got to know by now that throwing together a bunch of generic rockers and ballads just isn't going to work anymore. As long as this style is not a permanent new direction for the band, I can't see any members/fans having a major problem with it. This band needs to focus on GOOD, COMPLETED songs, and seems like State of Grace is as close to reaching that as anything else we've heard so far.

On 6/28/2019 at 7:26 AM, Kayo Michell said:

Live stream, just like Rock in Rio

If they debut some new songs like they did at Rock in Rio 3, that could be a really fun night for GN'R fans.