evilfacelessturtle

Does anyone know what TF that means? Or who it's directed at?

Chapter 1: LIVE!!!! From "Burning Hills", California... Due to overwhelming enthusiasm, and that "DIVE IN AND FIND THE MONKEY" attitude.... #1. There will NOT be a Guns N' Roses tour. #2. There will NOT be an official Guns N' Roses website. #3. There will NOT be any NEW Guns N' Roses videos. #4. There will NOT be any new Guns N' Roses involved merchandise. #5. There will NOT be a Guns N' Roses Fan Club. #6. There will be a new Guns N' Roses 12 song minimum recording with three original "B" sides. NOTE: If all goes well this will be immediately repeated. #7. However*******Slash will not be involved in any new Guns N' Roses endeavors? as far has not been musically involved with Guns N" Roses since April 1994 with the exception of a BRIEF feel period with Zakk Wylde and a 2 week initial period with Guns N' Roses in the late fall of '95. He (Slash) has been "OFFICIALLY and LEGALLY" outside of the Guns N' Roses Partnership since December 31, 1995. *************************************************** Nothing here is Subject To Change Without A PERMANENT SUSPENSION Of the "Pseudo Studio Musician Work Ethic"

My point is that seeing somebody on a TV show doesn't mean you know who they are or remember them. I couldn't name you a single member of a late night show house band, even though I've seen them all on TV countless times. I never said literally everyone on earth has to know him to be famous.

You're not wrong. But I think it also speaks to how far rock has slid from relevance as a genre. And it's an age thing. Anyone over 40 was old enough to be aware of GNR when at their peak. Under that, they might recognize him as the tophat guy but not know his name, if that. Guitar Hero is already narrowed to an audience of mostly rock fans. Eazy E and Lemmy are both well past their heydays, that doesn't do much for notoriety in 2024.

I know it's hard to divorce ourselves from being rock fans, but yes, despite breaking into the mainstream from time to time, he is not a household name. Could you name everyone else who was on the Oscars this year? Or last year? To most non-rock fans, he was just some guitarist, one of the long list of people involved in the show at some point. Wolfgang Van Halen was on the Oscars, too. I'd imagine most young people had no clue who he was despite him being on a mainstream platform. Put it this way, I'm working with a singer who is a metalhead and she didn't know who Slash was. There were better odds already being into a related genre, and yet, nope.

I wasn't commenting on CD2 at all, nor am I suggesting NuGNR was a success...

Okay, how about Oasis? You could apply it to literally any band in any era, I picked Floyd out of a hat. System of a Down? I think it's a heck of a stretch to call Floyd a "faceless band". Regardless I find it hard to believe that the music industry is hurting for money as the explanation. And it's easy as a fan to think that everyone knows Axl and Slash, but 9/10 people who aren't guitarists or rock fans have no clue who Slash is. That's why NuGuns was able to skate on the old legacy for so long. Most of my friends only know Slash because I'm a fan and I talk about GNR.

I don't think Todd's voice doesn't suit it, he just needs to work on nailing down the vocal melodies. Amazing that Slash managed to even rush the tempo of a song this friggin fast... I like that he's rediscovered UYI apparently. Ain't Life Grand would fit the blues tour nicely, with the horns and all.

This seems strange to me. I've never heard of this with any other band that splits up. Roger Waters and David Gilmour never got rejected by their labels to release material unless they reunited. I thought he sounded fine. If anything, better than he usually does live because NR is pretty deep into a long setlist, as opposed to that being the only song he performed at the funeral.

Interesting. Could it be that he only bought the rights to those songs, though? Except that fake quote. It doesn't even make sense and people are saying it would be a good title? WTF...

They used 2023 Axl pics because he looked good that year.

All things considered, if you consider all of the things that are up for consideration, I would consider all of the things to be considered until further notice. All things being considered, that is. Not to be inconsiderate...

LiveNation had some involvement in Bruce Dickinson's speaking tour: I've always thought it was strange that Axl likes Sebastian Bach so much, they seem like opposite personalities and Bach would grate on Axl's nerves with his constant yapping.

That ratio has been consistently around 3:1 since the early 1970s. These doomsday predictions have come and gone for decades upon decades. https://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html If nothing changes at all, the trust fund will last until 2033, at which point taxes will still be able to fund 80% of expected benefits. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html The actuarial report explicitly rejects your claim that life expectancy is increasing costs. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html The rich aren't paying in to SS at all right now, so how about we start there? Not sure where you got the idea that you can't tax the rich to make up the shortfall, of course you can. The shortfall in 2022 was $22 billion. The top 1% paid 700 billion in taxes in 2020. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2023-update/ Your quote tells us that when the program was created, most Americans would not live long enough to use it. You think that's fair? You think that's how it should operate today? I call it progress that more people are able to retire thanks to Social Security. Your quote just proves that the program was successful. You're also ignoring that while life expectancy has increased, so has GDP. Funny how we need to adjust for life expectancy increasing, but can't adjust for GDP and income inequality increasing, by taxing the rich more... What does automation have to do with this? Unemployment is the lowest it's been in 50 years right now.

I'm with you, the attempts to raise the retirement age are unacceptable. I'm just concerned with the societal tendency to engage in mystical thinking, whether about premonitions/predictions or other things.