Stinson: "Thousands of people will see it every night because he is Axl"

[Guest Len B'stard]

GNR or Replacements more important to rock history.....?

GNR - How many people pick up a guitar because of Slash? Many, probably millions. Even if those people don't sight GNR as an influence later in life when they produce music it's still a huge influence.

- How many people got into music because of GNR in general? Well, at least one; me. GNR took me beyond just enjoying punk pop and classic rock shit to actually thinking about and relating to lyrics, appreciating all sorts of other things in music than just dancing and having fun.

Replacements - Hugely influential on future bands. There's a quote about the Velvet Underground that I think applies here: "Not THAT many people listened to them but it seems everyone who did started a band". Green Day, Goo Goo Dolls, the Gaslight Anthem were influenced by them. I'd say Fugazi, Pavement, the whole post punk movement with shit like Husker Du and eventually At The Drive-In were all influenced by them. The rise of alternative in general with Sonic Youth and REM were probably influenced by them.

how do you add up which is more important overall? You don't. Fuck it.

Despite my previous post, i actually agree with you 100%, my initial post was more reacting against the notion that Tommy Stinson is some kind of no-mark chimp thats just been lucky enough to stumble into a position once occupied by Duff McKagan when, it could be argued, he was a part of something that, in terms of musical/historical importance, was a lot bigger than anything Duff had anything to do with. And after i made that statement and a couple of people bought me up on it, i was bound to back it up, which i think is kind of easy to do but on the whole, yeah, you're right, it's music, not celebrity squares or it's a knockout y'know, it's not a winners and losers thing, it's not a competition but, for the sake of discussion or comparitive scrutiny if you like, picking em apart and trying to be as clinical as one can with the given variables, the above was my conclusion. It's not to say ones better than the other cuz thats a personal thing.

P.S. the part i highlighted is relevant to me also although i probably wouldn't go so far as to say they're why i got into music but something close to that, they were very definitely my first love as a band and the first band i ever really really was into and got all the albums of and loved to bits...but again, my point was specific to historical importance to the medium/art form of popular music and less about like, a personal thing.

Edited January 12, 2012 by sugaraylen

[dalsh327]

GNR or Replacements more important to rock history.....?

GNR - How many people pick up a guitar because of Slash? Many, probably millions. Even if those people don't sight GNR as an influence later in life when they produce music it's still a huge influence.

- How many people got into music because of GNR in general? Well, at least one; me. GNR took me beyond just enjoying punk pop and classic rock shit to actually thinking about and relating to lyrics, appreciating all sorts of other things in music than just dancing and having fun.

Replacements - Hugely influential on future bands. There's a quote about the Velvet Underground that I think applies here: "Not THAT many people listened to them but it seems everyone who did started a band". Green Day, Goo Goo Dolls, the Gaslight Anthem were influenced by them. I'd say Fugazi, Pavement, the whole post punk movement with shit like Husker Du and eventually At The Drive-In were all influenced by them. The rise of alternative in general with Sonic Youth and REM were probably influenced by them.

how do you add up which is more important overall? You don't. Fuck it.

It all depends on what you consider "important" - soundtrack to your life, or the one that created an interest in picking up an instrument. This is Ed Trunk's argument about KISS - you can name a ton of artists that cite "Alive" as being the record that sent them to a music store to buy an instrument. As far as "alternative" bands go - it was college rock played on college radio, and distributed by college age kids.

[GivenToFly]

GNR or Replacements more important to rock history.....?

GNR - How many people pick up a guitar because of Slash? Many, probably millions. Even if those people don't sight GNR as an influence later in life when they produce music it's still a huge influence.

- How many people got into music because of GNR in general? Well, at least one; me. GNR took me beyond just enjoying punk pop and classic rock shit to actually thinking about and relating to lyrics, appreciating all sorts of other things in music than just dancing and having fun.

Replacements - Hugely influential on future bands. There's a quote about the Velvet Underground that I think applies here: "Not THAT many people listened to them but it seems everyone who did started a band". Green Day, Goo Goo Dolls, the Gaslight Anthem were influenced by them. I'd say Fugazi, Pavement, the whole post punk movement with shit like Husker Du and eventually At The Drive-In were all influenced by them. The rise of alternative in general with Sonic Youth and REM were probably influenced by them.

how do you add up which is more important overall? You don't. Fuck it.

This is it really. When you compare success, or better yet, lasting popularity versus musical influence you compare the impact a band has had on the public, on its listeners, against the impact it has had on other musicians. So which is more important?

GNR may not have been part of a groundbreaking movement but it did leave songs that people to this day listen to and sing along to, tons of people who claim that AFD saved their lives or Estranged helped them through shitty times in their lives, they still fill out arenas around the world despite the shit reputation the current band undeservedly has. A band like the Replacements is only of any significance to those with a direct interest in punk (I personally haven't heard of them in any context other than by association with GNR through Tommy) but GNR has been the soundtrack to the lives of millions.

[ironmt]

Big fucking deal, there were a few alternative bands Influenced by the Replacements. That does not make them an integral part of a history that was far more important to music than anything GnR ever had anything to do with. The Replacements never experienced any significant commercial success, and where are all your big alternative bands that were Influenced by them. You might want to check your facts, from what I recall Guns N Roses were playing to stadiums In 1993, well and truly far from sunk.

Commerce isn't really the yardstick of importance in musical history, is it? I mean by that rationale, Bros, Milli Vanilli, these guys sold huge, The Backstreet Boys but thats not really the yardstick of musical importance in a historical context, is it? You do it again by asking me who are the big alternative bands influenced by The Replacements, again, thats not what i'm talking about, what i'm talking about is helping to set prescedents that effected the musical industry. Like basically being an integral part of the creation of an underground circuit in America, one thats still being used today, about being one of the only bands out of that whole 80s American punk era that got signed to a major record label, that is an ENORMOUS prescedent and its something that led to a huge change and shift in the dynamics of the record industry, these things are what historical importance is based on, the way in which music reaches people and is presented to people, the dynamics of an entire industry, The Replacements played a kind of music and were part of a movement that was literally undigestable by the mainstream and yet the mainstream came to it, thanks to the work done by bands like The Replacements and Husker Du and Black Flag and so on and so forth. Guns n Roses just played mainstream music and became accepted by the mainstream by doing it, got big and then fizzled out, now, there's a lot of achievement in what GnR did and i'm obviously a fan or i wouldn't be there but in terms of historical importance, which is what i was talking about, sorry, Replacements beat em out...and easily.

And yeah, checking those facts, based on the standards of importance that you've laid out (which appears to be strictly commerce) the album they released in 93 sold a helluva lot less than the albums before it and although they were playing stadiums in 1993, they also stopped playing altogether in 1993...for the rest of the decade. Now how much more sunk can you get than not playing? Exactly. Face it, that kind of stadium filling classical lead singer/lead guitarist type rock n roll, GnR were the last band of it so you could even go so far as to say alternative or punk rather the effects of all that were reponsible for the death of the entire type of music that bands like GnR or Aerosmith or what have you represented. At least in terms of relevance if not commercial viability. But then historical importance is a musical context is about what you've actually done for the medium and not how much money you made while doing it.

The Replacements have never gotten their due. They were a very important band.

I agree, sort of. I mean they have and they haven't insofar as when you watch music documentaries now and history of rock n roll things that whole movement in the 80s is given it's due to some degree, or books like Our Band Could Be Your Life by Michael Azzard and The Replacements are like, one of the 13 most important bands cited that bought about a HUGE shift in the music industry, which is kinda smile-inducing to see But yeah, as a general thing? No, The Replacements didn't get anything like the respect they deserve. These things change though and they're starting to.

If you look at all the musical documentarys that show the history of rock n roll, there's never really a mention of Guns n Roses because it would be remiss of said documentary to assign that much importance to GnR. And it's not cuz they try and be cool and hip and only pick out unknown bands, look at that BBC one, the seven ages of rock, there's an episode for like the Hendrix late 60s era, one for metal, one for punk, one for britpop/rock, one for glam, one for stadium rock and one for alternative. Guns n Roses aren't even mentioned really in those documentaries. The Replacements are though. In fact, one of the episodes is named after a Replacements song (Left of the Dial). Not bad for a band of drunken misfits from Minneapolis eh? And this is a constant thing, when you look at the editorialisation or history books or timelines or what have you, regarding rock n roll, Guns n Roses, despite being SOOOO fucking huge, are barely mentioned. And The Replacements, without hardly selling shit relatively, are frequently cited.

To put it in one sentence and sum up everything into a nice digestible question for you to answer, historical importance in music is largely about being pioneers...so tell me, what were GnR pioneers of? Being a big band...or even a huge band doesn't necessarily denote historical importance in music.

As stated In my previous post thats your opinion, who are you to be judge and jury on which band was the most Influential? Ten years from now when a supergroup comes along and when asked who there Influences were and they name Guns N Roses, are you going to be arrogant enough to tell them that that just can't be, because the facts are that the Replacements are more Influential. I'm sure there are bands out there right now who would consider Guns N Roses to be more Influential than The Replacements. It's all an OPINION.

[chevelle]

I was saying that the upsurge of alternative music in the early 90s heralded curtains for GnR in 1993

Yeah, it did in a small way, but I think you're forgetting that those guys just couldn't work together on any level at that point, either. I think, alternative music or not, they would've split apart by then anyway.

Edited January 12, 2012 by chevelle

[Apollo]

GNR or Replacements more important to rock history.....?

GNR - How many people pick up a guitar because of Slash? Many, probably millions. Even if those people don't sight GNR as an influence later in life when they produce music it's still a huge influence.

- How many people got into music because of GNR in general? Well, at least one; me. GNR took me beyond just enjoying punk pop and classic rock shit to actually thinking about and relating to lyrics, appreciating all sorts of other things in music than just dancing and having fun.

Replacements - Hugely influential on future bands. There's a quote about the Velvet Underground that I think applies here: "Not THAT many people listened to them but it seems everyone who did started a band". Green Day, Goo Goo Dolls, the Gaslight Anthem were influenced by them. I'd say Fugazi, Pavement, the whole post punk movement with shit like Husker Du and eventually At The Drive-In were all influenced by them. The rise of alternative in general with Sonic Youth and REM were probably influenced by them.

how do you add up which is more important overall? You don't. Fuck it.

I disagree with about 90% of what you post..........but I think you ended this topic with this post. Perfect, spot on. Great post.

A band's importance is relevant to how much the fan likes that band. Len is a die-hard punk fan, so he thinks the punk bands are the be-all end-all of the music world.

Somebody who doesn't like punk music, has no interest in the replacements at all. And wouldn't brag about inspiring the Goo Goo Dolls or Greenday!

This is why music is great. It means so many different things to different people.

On a side note, GnR is the only band's forum that I've been to that has daily users who actually dislike the band. I still can't quite grasp that concept. It's like going to the facebook page of a girl you were in love with in high school that broke your heart, and you go to her page every day to tell her how much you dislike her and what a bad person she is. For breaking up with you 15 years ago.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Groghan

[Guest Len B'stard]

As far as "alternative" bands go - it was college rock played on college radio, and distributed by college age kids.

Which makes it all the more extraordinary that the entire music industry and the history of rock n roll was effect by it surely?

As stated In my previous post thats your opinion, who are you to be judge and jury on which band was the most Influential?

Absolutely nothing but i can state the facts of a given matter based on apparent evidence, which is what i did.

Ten years from now when a supergroup comes along and when asked who there Influences were and they name Guns N Roses, are you going to be arrogant enough to tell them that that just can't be, because the facts are that the Replacements are more Influential.

What in Gods name is that supposed to mean? Where in the assertion that The Replacements are more influential than Guns n Roses did you interpret the statement that it is impossible for Guns n Roses to influence anyone?

I'm sure there are bands out there right now who would consider Guns N Roses to be more Influential than The Replacements. It's all an OPINION.

What to themselves personally or the industry on the whole? If the former, then yes, thats more than possible, if the latter then they're welcome to state their opinion and if they can reason it out, as i've gone to great lengths to do so in this thread then Fair play to em but thats not what you're doing here, you're just saying "it's all opinion", well i'm sorry but it's not, we're not talking about some abstract thing here, this is a reality, we're talking about things that really happened and on the whole I think The Replacements are more influential and i've stated why and backed it up, if i'm wrong, this is a forum, a forum for discussion, show me how I'm wrong or how you feel that i'm wrong, unless you don't want to engage in a discussion with me and that's fine too but to just keep saying "it's all opinion, it's all opinion" is avoiding the point, this ain't my opinion, this is a fact, The Replacements, as of January 2012, based on the reasons i've stated, are more important to the history of music so far. Now, as i say,if you think otherwise, knock yourself out, explain it to me.

A band's importance is relevant to how much the fan likes that band.

Rubbish. I don't think much of Black Sabbath...or Led Zeppelin but i don't for one second go around stating that they don't have any importance to the history of rock n roll, this is sort of the mentality that i'm talking about, that historical facts should somehow be coloured by personal preference, never understood that.

Len is a die-hard punk fan, so he thinks the punk bands are the be-all end-all of the music world.

Does he really? Did you ask him that or...?

Edited January 12, 2012 by sugaraylen

[ironmt]

As far as "alternative" bands go - it was college rock played on college radio, and distributed by college age kids.

Which makes it all the more extraordinary that the entire music industry and the history of rock n roll was effect by it surely?

As stated In my previous post thats your opinion, who are you to be judge and jury on which band was the most Influential?

Absolutely nothing but i can state the facts of a given matter based on apparent evidence, which is what i did.

Ten years from now when a supergroup comes along and when asked who there Influences were and they name Guns N Roses, are you going to be arrogant enough to tell them that that just can't be, because the facts are that the Replacements are more Influential.

What in Gods name is that supposed to mean? Where in the assertion that The Replacements are more influential than Guns n Roses did you interpret the statement that it is impossible for Guns n Roses to influence anyone?

I'm sure there are bands out there right now who would consider Guns N Roses to be more Influential than The Replacements. It's all an OPINION.

What to themselves personally or the industry on the whole? If the former, then yes, thats more than possible, if the latter then they're welcome to state their opinion and if they can reason it out, as i've gone to great lengths to do so in this thread then Fair play to em but thats not what you're doing here, you're just saying "it's all opinion", well i'm sorry but it's not, we're not talking about some abstract thing here, this is a reality, we're talking about things that really happened and on the whole I think The Replacements are more influential and i've stated why and backed it up, if i'm wrong, this is a forum, a forum for discussion, show me how I'm wrong or how you feel that i'm wrong, unless you don't want to engage in a discussion with me and that's fine too but to just keep saying "it's all opinion, it's all opinion" is avoiding the point, this ain't my opinion, this is a fact, The Replacements, as of January 2012, based on the reasons i've stated, are more important to the history of music so far. Now, as i say,if you think otherwise, knock yourself out, explain it to me.

A band's importance is relevant to how much the fan likes that band.

Rubbish. I don't think much of Black Sabbath...or Led Zeppelin but i don't for one second go around stating that they don't have any importance to the history of rock n roll, this is sort of the mentality that i'm talking about, that historical facts should somehow be coloured by personal preference, never understood that.

Len is a die-hard punk fan, so he thinks the punk bands are the be-all end-all of the music world.

Does he really? Did you ask him that or...?

It's a fact In your mind. Influencing a few alternative bands from the early 90's hardly justifies being considered more Influential than Guns N Roses. This Is the best part of your argument "I think The Replacements are more influential". That Is once again...... Here It goes......... Your favorite word........ an O?INIO?.... Fuck It, you feel In the blanks.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I was actually getting at the notion of changing the history of rock n roll and being one of the core influences behind a decades worth of underground of underground music and a worldwide explosion of alternative music and culture from the early 90s onwards, lets be clear about this, it's a helluva lot more than "a few alternative bands" but look, it's clear you don't actually have a point to make or anything to refer to, you're just gonna shag the same dead horse here nor do you appear to have much of an awareness about what you've taken upon yourself to comment on, I mean you've yet to even cite one single way in which Guns n Roses were at all influential in music in a historical context except to say that they sold a lot of records so lets just draw a line under this, until you feel like you wanna have a discussion or something, in which case, i'll be around, thanks, good talking to ya

Edited January 12, 2012 by sugaraylen

[packersnroses]

The current bassist of the band Axl Rose, Tommy Stinson, commented on what exactly makes people still go to concerts of the group despite all the negative publicity surrounding them - and his response is straightforward.

Tommy Stinson - better known as the man who pretends to be in Guns N 'Roses Duff McKagan - was recently interviewed by U.S. newspaper LA Weekly and shared his thoughts on why Axl Rose still draws crowds.

"I think he wants to go and give a good show and have fun," says bassist. "It's what you have to do first. Trying to compete with the old band - the fucking Slash, bang all that - is useless. Thousands of people will see it every night because he is Axl Rose. "

"He has done the same thing throughout his career," he amended, speaking of the peculiar behavior of the Rose. "Entering late in the stage - what's new? It's kind of routine at this point. He makes his bid and he too thin to give a good show every night. He is preparing for the very best it can be, and I think that's commendable. This guy still sing like a motherfucker. "

http://lokaos.net/tommy-stinson-e-pra-ver-axl-que-as-pessoas-vao-aos-shows/

You're not a reporter. Just give us the link to the interview. We don't care about your bias input.

[Apollo]

As far as "alternative" bands go - it was college rock played on college radio, and distributed by college age kids.

Which makes it all the more extraordinary that the entire music industry and the history of rock n roll was effect by it surely?

As stated In my previous post thats your opinion, who are you to be judge and jury on which band was the most Influential?

Absolutely nothing but i can state the facts of a given matter based on apparent evidence, which is what i did.

Ten years from now when a supergroup comes along and when asked who there Influences were and they name Guns N Roses, are you going to be arrogant enough to tell them that that just can't be, because the facts are that the Replacements are more Influential.

What in Gods name is that supposed to mean? Where in the assertion that The Replacements are more influential than Guns n Roses did you interpret the statement that it is impossible for Guns n Roses to influence anyone?

I'm sure there are bands out there right now who would consider Guns N Roses to be more Influential than The Replacements. It's all an OPINION.

What to themselves personally or the industry on the whole? If the former, then yes, thats more than possible, if the latter then they're welcome to state their opinion and if they can reason it out, as i've gone to great lengths to do so in this thread then Fair play to em but thats not what you're doing here, you're just saying "it's all opinion", well i'm sorry but it's not, we're not talking about some abstract thing here, this is a reality, we're talking about things that really happened and on the whole I think The Replacements are more influential and i've stated why and backed it up, if i'm wrong, this is a forum, a forum for discussion, show me how I'm wrong or how you feel that i'm wrong, unless you don't want to engage in a discussion with me and that's fine too but to just keep saying "it's all opinion, it's all opinion" is avoiding the point, this ain't my opinion, this is a fact, The Replacements, as of January 2012, based on the reasons i've stated, are more important to the history of music so far. Now, as i say,if you think otherwise, knock yourself out, explain it to me.

A band's importance is relevant to how much the fan likes that band.

Rubbish. I don't think much of Black Sabbath...or Led Zeppelin but i don't for one second go around stating that they don't have any importance to the history of rock n roll, this is sort of the mentality that i'm talking about, that historical facts should somehow be coloured by personal preference, never understood that.

Len is a die-hard punk fan, so he thinks the punk bands are the be-all end-all of the music world.

Does he really? Did you ask him that or...?

So basically, as long as YOU feel strongly about something or think that it is fact........then it is, in fact, fact. It is always funny on forums when the most opinionated people act like their viewpoints are 100% facts and other people's opinions are just non-substanciated feelings.

And to claim that you are not biased on this issue is ridiculous. Every issue/debate in the world has a strong tie based on where you fall on the issue, and to claim it doesn't just shows how arrogant you really are.

If somebody agrees with your stance - then they are a genius who has clearly done research on the subject and knows what they are talking about. If they disasgree, then they are ignorant and close-minded.

Did you write the Replacements WIKI page? A lot of the info you gave us is the blueprint for that page, including the main bands they influenced.

Which band is more influential? That is extremely hard to prove.

Do a poll of bands and musicians.

Do a poll of people involved in the music industry.

Do a poll of music fans.

Do a pop-culture study. Yes, that is important. Welcome To The Jungle is just a rock song.........but it might literally be the most played rock son in the history of music. Pretty much every proffesional (and a lot of college) sports teams use Jungle during their games to get players and fans fired up.

Music, like all art, depends on the people - whether you want to admit it or not.

IMO, if anything, The Replacements are overrated.

Green Day and Goo Goo Dolls saying you are their main influence is not really something I'd brag too much about.

And if they were so good, how come they weren't more successful? Where are the albums that changed music? Where are the songs that are listed on every Best Song Lists?

They may have been a huge influence in the punk or alt-rock fanbase, but let's not mistake that with the overall music genre. And only people that are into that music scene would say they have had a bigger influence or made a bigger mark in the music world than GnR. Oh, and hipsters or those who try to be hip and cool by wearing a replacements or clash t-shirt, but couldn't name you more than one song by either band. (not you len, but there are a lot of people like that).

If the old GnR reunited and The Replacements reunited................who would get the better deal from a label? Who would have better attendance in a world tour? Who would sell more copies of their music?

[ironmt]

I was actually getting at the notion of changing the history of rock n roll and being one of the core influences behind a decades worth of underground of underground music and a worldwide explosion of alternative music and culture from the early 90s onwards, lets be clear about this, it's a helluva lot more than "a few alternative bands" but look, it's clear you don't actually have a point to make or anything to refer to, you're just gonna shag the same dead horse here nor do you appear to have much of an awareness about what you've taken upon yourself to comment on, I mean you've yet to even cite one single way in which Guns n Roses were at all influential in music in a historical context except to say that they sold a lot of records so lets just draw a line under this, until you feel like you wanna have a discussion or something, in which case, i'll be around, thanks, good talking to ya

I have nothing to prove, you are the one that needs to prove something, anyway here Is a little history, just for you, by the way I'm glad to here that you are familier with Guns N Roses as you referenced a song title of theres In your post(Dead Horse). Now back to history, Guns n Roses have the best-selling debut of all time, both in the U.S. and worldwide. August 31st, 1991 - Wembley Stadium in London England.

72000 tickets were sold out in record breaking time. No artist had sold out the venue this fast before G N R.

September 17th 1991 Use Your Illusion released at number one and number two on the Billboard charts. They marked the first time a major contemporary rock artist had released two separate albums on the same day. November 25th, 1992 biggest show ever staged in Venezuela. Guns N Roses embarked on the longest tour in rock history, They played a total of 192 dates in 27 countries to over 7 million fans grossing 58 million. So there It Is, I could go on and on but In your mind you are right, guess what you are entitled to your opinion. Just remember who your boy Tommy Stinson works for.

[Apollo]

I was actually getting at the notion of changing the history of rock n roll and being one of the core influences behind a decades worth of underground of underground music and a worldwide explosion of alternative music and culture from the early 90s onwards, lets be clear about this, it's a helluva lot more than "a few alternative bands" but look, it's clear you don't actually have a point to make or anything to refer to, you're just gonna shag the same dead horse here nor do you appear to have much of an awareness about what you've taken upon yourself to comment on, I mean you've yet to even cite one single way in which Guns n Roses were at all influential in music in a historical context except to say that they sold a lot of records so lets just draw a line under this, until you feel like you wanna have a discussion or something, in which case, i'll be around, thanks, good talking to ya

I have nothing to prove, you are the one that needs to prove something, anyway here Is a little history, just for you, by the way I'm glad to here that you are familier with Guns N Roses as you referenced a song title of theres In your post(Dead Horse). Now back to history, Guns n Roses have the best-selling debut of all time, both in the U.S. and worldwide. August 31st, 1991 - Wembley Stadium in London England.

72000 tickets were sold out in record breaking time. No artist had sold out the venue this fast before G N R.

September 17th 1991 Use Your Illusion released at number one and number two on the Billboard charts. They marked the first time a major contemporary rock artist had released two separate albums on the same day. November 25th, 1992 biggest show ever staged in Venezuela. Guns N Roses embarked on the longest tour in rock history, They played a total of 192 dates in 27 countries to over 7 million fans grossing 58 million. So there It Is, I could go on and on but In your mind you are right, guess what you are entitled to your opinion. Just remember who your boy Tommy Stinson works for.

You will soon learn that Len is always right, on every subject.

And he will respond to your post and ignore ALL the facts you provided - but go off on a 25 paragraph response that vears into responses where you will go "Uhhh, what the heck does that have to do with anything I said" and by the time it is finished, he will have warped your response into saying that you think GnR are angels sent from heaven and your local bar polka band is 100 times better than The Replacements. Eventually he will start personally insulting you and you'll be a racist bigot c*nt. And then soon after that you will leave the debate because you will find yourself arguing about things you hadn't ever said or implied, and you will just move on to other topics.

I thought he just did that with me........but then you see him do it with other people.......and it all makes sense! I used to enjoy debating with him, but eventually I kept finding myself saying "What the heck are you talking about, I never said that" when reading his responses, so now I try and not get caught up in his rants. Even though I did in this topic, so I except the name-calling and insults to start all over again!!!!

[Guest Len B'stard]

As far as "alternative" bands go - it was college rock played on college radio, and distributed by college age kids.

Which makes it all the more extraordinary that the entire music industry and the history of rock n roll was effect by it surely?

As stated In my previous post thats your opinion, who are you to be judge and jury on which band was the most Influential?

Absolutely nothing but i can state the facts of a given matter based on apparent evidence, which is what i did.

Ten years from now when a supergroup comes along and when asked who there Influences were and they name Guns N Roses, are you going to be arrogant enough to tell them that that just can't be, because the facts are that the Replacements are more Influential.

What in Gods name is that supposed to mean? Where in the assertion that The Replacements are more influential than Guns n Roses did you interpret the statement that it is impossible for Guns n Roses to influence anyone?

I'm sure there are bands out there right now who would consider Guns N Roses to be more Influential than The Replacements. It's all an OPINION.

What to themselves personally or the industry on the whole? If the former, then yes, thats more than possible, if the latter then they're welcome to state their opinion and if they can reason it out, as i've gone to great lengths to do so in this thread then Fair play to em but thats not what you're doing here, you're just saying "it's all opinion", well i'm sorry but it's not, we're not talking about some abstract thing here, this is a reality, we're talking about things that really happened and on the whole I think The Replacements are more influential and i've stated why and backed it up, if i'm wrong, this is a forum, a forum for discussion, show me how I'm wrong or how you feel that i'm wrong, unless you don't want to engage in a discussion with me and that's fine too but to just keep saying "it's all opinion, it's all opinion" is avoiding the point, this ain't my opinion, this is a fact, The Replacements, as of January 2012, based on the reasons i've stated, are more important to the history of music so far. Now, as i say,if you think otherwise, knock yourself out, explain it to me.

A band's importance is relevant to how much the fan likes that band.

Rubbish. I don't think much of Black Sabbath...or Led Zeppelin but i don't for one second go around stating that they don't have any importance to the history of rock n roll, this is sort of the mentality that i'm talking about, that historical facts should somehow be coloured by personal preference, never understood that.

Len is a die-hard punk fan, so he thinks the punk bands are the be-all end-all of the music world.

Does he really? Did you ask him that or...?

So basically, as long as YOU feel strongly about something or think that it is fact........then it is, in fact, fact. It is always funny on forums when the most opinionated people act like their viewpoints are 100% facts and other people's opinions are just non-substanciated feelings.

And to claim that you are not biased on this issue is ridiculous. Every issue/debate in the world has a strong tie based on where you fall on the issue, and to claim it doesn't just shows how arrogant you really are.

If somebody agrees with your stance - then they are a genius who has clearly done research on the subject and knows what they are talking about. If they disasgree, then they are ignorant and close-minded.

Did you write the Replacements WIKI page? A lot of the info you gave us is the blueprint for that page, including the main bands they influenced.

Which band is more influential? That is extremely hard to prove.

Do a poll of bands and musicians.

Do a poll of people involved in the music industry.

Do a poll of music fans.

Do a pop-culture study. Yes, that is important. Welcome To The Jungle is just a rock song.........but it might literally be the most played rock son in the history of music. Pretty much every proffesional (and a lot of college) sports teams use Jungle during their games to get players and fans fired up.

Music, like all art, depends on the people - whether you want to admit it or not.

IMO, if anything, The Replacements are overrated.

Green Day and Goo Goo Dolls saying you are their main influence is not really something I'd brag too much about.

And if they were so good, how come they weren't more successful? Where are the albums that changed music? Where are the songs that are listed on every Best Song Lists?

They may have been a huge influence in the punk or alt-rock fanbase, but let's not mistake that with the overall music genre. And only people that are into that music scene would say they have had a bigger influence or made a bigger mark in the music world than GnR. Oh, and hipsters or those who try to be hip and cool by wearing a replacements or clash t-shirt, but couldn't name you more than one song by either band. (not you len, but there are a lot of people like that).

If the old GnR reunited and The Replacements reunited................who would get the better deal from a label? Who would have better attendance in a world tour? Who would sell more copies of their music?

Weren't you supposed to've stopped talking to me? Weren't you the guy who kept going on about internet vendettas and how immature they were and how it's adult to actually rise above this sorta thing and go about your shit? Weren't you the guy trying to gamble his "forum life" against mine over a boxing match? This is like the umpteenth time now Groghan, am i your flavour of the month now, is that it? Been trying to stay away from shit you post man if you're determined to chat with me, OK, lets chat:

No if something i feel strongly about something being fact that doesn't make it fact BUT in a discussion, you make statements...claim something to be fact then the idea is that you back it up and if you don't well then you're not making a very good representation of your end, thats sort of what message board and discussions are about, i believe something to be fact, i say why and how as opposed to just going no no no no no no no no.

And no i'm not biased on the issue because i'm a fan of both GnR and The Replacements, probably more so GnR if longevity counts for anything.

Whats a WIKI page? And i haven't really cited any bands that The Replacements influenced, in fact i don't think i cited any?

Yes, it is hard to prove but then we're on this internet, this is a discussion board, i'm stating what i think and the reasons why i think that shit is the case and i think it stands to reason and so far no ones actually disputed any of it specifically.

What have Green Day and The Goo Goo Dolls got to do with anything? I don't even know who The Goo Goo Dolls are, are you quite sure you're reading my posts and talking about things i've said here or...?

As far as if they were so good why weren't they more successful well, again, to me, that is success, the reasons i've cited for them being a key part of a movement that changed the music industry, to me, that is success and not necessarily album sales or hit singles or being in the rolling stone top 100 songs list. i guess it depends on your priorities.

Again with my citing them as being important in the context of the history of popular music, moreso than Guns n Roses in that they were key to something that affected huge changes in it whereas Guns n Roses weren't or didn't.

And again, how does GnR getting bigger attendances and record sales and what have you have anything to do with what i've been repeating over and over and over and over in this thread?

You will soon learn that Len is always right, on every subject.

And he will respond to your post and ignore ALL the facts you provided - but go off on a 25 paragraph response that vears into responses where you will go "Uhhh, what the heck does that have to do with anything I said" and by the time it is finished, he will have warped your response into saying that you think GnR are angels sent from heaven and your local bar polka band is 100 times better than The Replacements. Eventually he will start personally insulting you and you'll be a racist bigot c*nt. And then soon after that you will leave the debate because you will find yourself arguing about things you hadn't ever said or implied, and you will just move on to other topics.

More of that not holding an internet grudge you were talking about? Please man, if you wanna discuss shit with me, lets do it, if you don't then don't but do you really have to follow me around poking your finger up my arse like this? I mean, what is it, what do you want from me man?

Edited January 12, 2012 by sugaraylen

[Guest Len B'stard]

I was actually getting at the notion of changing the history of rock n roll and being one of the core influences behind a decades worth of underground of underground music and a worldwide explosion of alternative music and culture from the early 90s onwards, lets be clear about this, it's a helluva lot more than "a few alternative bands" but look, it's clear you don't actually have a point to make or anything to refer to, you're just gonna shag the same dead horse here nor do you appear to have much of an awareness about what you've taken upon yourself to comment on, I mean you've yet to even cite one single way in which Guns n Roses were at all influential in music in a historical context except to say that they sold a lot of records so lets just draw a line under this, until you feel like you wanna have a discussion or something, in which case, i'll be around, thanks, good talking to ya

I have nothing to prove, you are the one that needs to prove something, anyway here Is a little history, just for you, by the way I'm glad to here that you are familier with Guns N Roses as you referenced a song title of theres In your post(Dead Horse). Now back to history, Guns n Roses have the best-selling debut of all time, both in the U.S. and worldwide. August 31st, 1991 - Wembley Stadium in London England.

72000 tickets were sold out in record breaking time. No artist had sold out the venue this fast before G N R.

September 17th 1991 Use Your Illusion released at number one and number two on the Billboard charts. They marked the first time a major contemporary rock artist had released two separate albums on the same day. November 25th, 1992 biggest show ever staged in Venezuela. Guns N Roses embarked on the longest tour in rock history, They played a total of 192 dates in 27 countries to over 7 million fans grossing 58 million. So there It Is, I could go on and on but In your mind you are right, guess what you are entitled to your opinion. Just remember who your boy Tommy Stinson works for.

Again, this is all stuff related to commerce...sales, making money, it has nothing to do with the point i've been making which i think has escaped you a little and that was that i think that The Replacements, based on the reasons i've mentioned earlier in the thread, have had a bigger effect on the history of music and the industry, what you're doing is citing attendance records and record sales in response to something that has absolutely nothing to do with what i was talking about. If you have nothing to prove then why are you wasting my time man?!?!?! I made some comments and if you didn't wanna discuss em then say you don't wanna, simple! Or don't respond to the posts. You have yet to even approach addressing my point and so, for the second time of trying, i'm gonna draw a line under this because, with all due respect, i don't think you've understood a word i've said, which is fine, thanks a lot, nice talking to you, God bless

[ironmt]

I was actually getting at the notion of changing the history of rock n roll and being one of the core influences behind a decades worth of underground of underground music and a worldwide explosion of alternative music and culture from the early 90s onwards, lets be clear about this, it's a helluva lot more than "a few alternative bands" but look, it's clear you don't actually have a point to make or anything to refer to, you're just gonna shag the same dead horse here nor do you appear to have much of an awareness about what you've taken upon yourself to comment on, I mean you've yet to even cite one single way in which Guns n Roses were at all influential in music in a historical context except to say that they sold a lot of records so lets just draw a line under this, until you feel like you wanna have a discussion or something, in which case, i'll be around, thanks, good talking to ya

I have nothing to prove, you are the one that needs to prove something, anyway here Is a little history, just for you, by the way I'm glad to here that you are familier with Guns N Roses as you referenced a song title of theres In your post(Dead Horse). Now back to history, Guns n Roses have the best-selling debut of all time, both in the U.S. and worldwide. August 31st, 1991 - Wembley Stadium in London England.

72000 tickets were sold out in record breaking time. No artist had sold out the venue this fast before G N R.

September 17th 1991 Use Your Illusion released at number one and number two on the Billboard charts. They marked the first time a major contemporary rock artist had released two separate albums on the same day. November 25th, 1992 biggest show ever staged in Venezuela. Guns N Roses embarked on the longest tour in rock history, They played a total of 192 dates in 27 countries to over 7 million fans grossing 58 million. So there It Is, I could go on and on but In your mind you are right, guess what you are entitled to your opinion. Just remember who your boy Tommy Stinson works for.

You will soon learn that Len is always right, on every subject.

And he will respond to your post and ignore ALL the facts you provided - but go off on a 25 paragraph response that vears into responses where you will go "Uhhh, what the heck does that have to do with anything I said" and by the time it is finished, he will have warped your response into saying that you think GnR are angels sent from heaven and your local bar polka band is 100 times better than The Replacements. Eventually he will start personally insulting you and you'll be a racist bigot c*nt. And then soon after that you will leave the debate because you will find yourself arguing about things you hadn't ever said or implied, and you will just move on to other topics.

I thought he just did that with me........but then you see him do it with other people.......and it all makes sense! I used to enjoy debating with him, but eventually I kept finding myself saying "What the heck are you talking about, I never said that" when reading his responses, so now I try and not get caught up in his rants. Even though I did in this topic, so I except the name-calling and insults to start all over again!!!!

Thank you for pointing that out. I am starting to see where this Is going. I am completely lost as to why anyone would come on a Guns N Roses message board and try to convince other members why another band Is more Influential than the band the board Is dedicated to.

[Guest Len B'stard]

As far as "alternative" bands go - it was college rock played on college radio, and distributed by college age kids.

Which makes it all the more extraordinary that the entire music industry and the history of rock n roll was effect by it surely?

As stated In my previous post thats your opinion, who are you to be judge and jury on which band was the most Influential?

Absolutely nothing but i can state the facts of a given matter based on apparent evidence, which is what i did.

Ten years from now when a supergroup comes along and when asked who there Influences were and they name Guns N Roses, are you going to be arrogant enough to tell them that that just can't be, because the facts are that the Replacements are more Influential.

What in Gods name is that supposed to mean? Where in the assertion that The Replacements are more influential than Guns n Roses did you interpret the statement that it is impossible for Guns n Roses to influence anyone?

I'm sure there are bands out there right now who would consider Guns N Roses to be more Influential than The Replacements. It's all an OPINION.

What to themselves personally or the industry on the whole? If the former, then yes, thats more than possible, if the latter then they're welcome to state their opinion and if they can reason it out, as i've gone to great lengths to do so in this thread then Fair play to em but thats not what you're doing here, you're just saying "it's all opinion", well i'm sorry but it's not, we're not talking about some abstract thing here, this is a reality, we're talking about things that really happened and on the whole I think The Replacements are more influential and i've stated why and backed it up, if i'm wrong, this is a forum, a forum for discussion, show me how I'm wrong or how you feel that i'm wrong, unless you don't want to engage in a discussion with me and that's fine too but to just keep saying "it's all opinion, it's all opinion" is avoiding the point, this ain't my opinion, this is a fact, The Replacements, as of January 2012, based on the reasons i've stated, are more important to the history of music so far. Now, as i say,if you think otherwise, knock yourself out, explain it to me.

A band's importance is relevant to how much the fan likes that band.

Rubbish. I don't think much of Black Sabbath...or Led Zeppelin but i don't for one second go around stating that they don't have any importance to the history of rock n roll, this is sort of the mentality that i'm talking about, that historical facts should somehow be coloured by personal preference, never understood that.

Len is a die-hard punk fan, so he thinks the punk bands are the be-all end-all of the music world.

Does he really? Did you ask him that or...?

So basically, as long as YOU feel strongly about something or think that it is fact........then it is, in fact, fact. It is always funny on forums when the most opinionated people act like their viewpoints are 100% facts and other people's opinions are just non-substanciated feelings.

And to claim that you are not biased on this issue is ridiculous. Every issue/debate in the world has a strong tie based on where you fall on the issue, and to claim it doesn't just shows how arrogant you really are.

If somebody agrees with your stance - then they are a genius who has clearly done research on the subject and knows what they are talking about. If they disasgree, then they are ignorant and close-minded.

Did you write the Replacements WIKI page? A lot of the info you gave us is the blueprint for that page, including the main bands they influenced.

Which band is more influential? That is extremely hard to prove.

Do a poll of bands and musicians.

Do a poll of people involved in the music industry.

Do a poll of music fans.

Do a pop-culture study. Yes, that is important. Welcome To The Jungle is just a rock song.........but it might literally be the most played rock son in the history of music. Pretty much every proffesional (and a lot of college) sports teams use Jungle during their games to get players and fans fired up.

Music, like all art, depends on the people - whether you want to admit it or not.

IMO, if anything, The Replacements are overrated.

Green Day and Goo Goo Dolls saying you are their main influence is not really something I'd brag too much about.

And if they were so good, how come they weren't more successful? Where are the albums that changed music? Where are the songs that are listed on every Best Song Lists?

They may have been a huge influence in the punk or alt-rock fanbase, but let's not mistake that with the overall music genre. And only people that are into that music scene would say they have had a bigger influence or made a bigger mark in the music world than GnR. Oh, and hipsters or those who try to be hip and cool by wearing a replacements or clash t-shirt, but couldn't name you more than one song by either band. (not you len, but there are a lot of people like that).

If the old GnR reunited and The Replacements reunited................who would get the better deal from a label? Who would have better attendance in a world tour? Who would sell more copies of their music?

Weren't you supposed to've stopped talking to me? Weren't you the guy who kept going on about internet vendettas and how immature they were and how it's adult to actually rise above this sorta thing and go about your shit? Weren't you the guy trying to gamble his "forum life" against mine over a boxing match? This is like the umpteenth time now Groghan, am i your flavour of the month now, is that it? Been trying to stay away from shit you post man if you're determined to chat with me, OK, lets chat:

No if something i feel strongly about something being fact that doesn't make it fact BUT in a discussion, you make statements...claim something to be fact then the idea is that you back it up and if you don't well then you're not making a very good representation of your end, thats sort of what message board and discussions are about, i believe something to be fact, i say why and how as opposed to just going no no no no no no no no.

And no i'm not biased on the issue because i'm a fan of both GnR and The Replacements, probably more so GnR if longevity counts for anything.

Whats a WIKI page? And i haven't really cited any bands that The Replacements influenced, in fact i don't think i cited any?

Yes, it is hard to prove but then we're on this internet, this is a discussion board, i'm stating what i think and the reasons why i think that shit is the case and i think it stands to reason and so far no ones actually disputed any of it specifically.

What have Green Day and The Goo Goo Dolls got to do with anything? I don't even know who The Goo Goo Dolls are, are you quite sure you're reading my posts and talking about things i've said here or...?

As far as if they were so good why weren't they more successful well, again, to me, that is success, the reasons i've cited for them being a key part of a movement that changed the music industry, to me, that is success and not necessarily album sales or hit singles or being in the rolling stone top 100 songs list. i guess it depends on your priorities.

Again with my citing them as being important in the context of the history of popular music, moreso than Guns n Roses in that they were key to something that affected huge changes in it whereas Guns n Roses weren't or didn't.

And again, how does GnR getting bigger attendances and record sales and what have you have anything to do with what i've been repeating over and over and over and over in this thread?

Sorry to bud in here but...you don't know the Goo Goo Dolls?

I've heard the name but thats about it.

[Dazey]

You will soon learn that Len is always right, on every subject.

He usually is you're right!

[moreblack]

Thank you for pointing that out. I am starting to see where this Is going. I am completely lost as to why anyone would come on a Guns N Roses message board and try to convince other members why another band Is more Influential than the band the board Is dedicated to.

if the other band was in fact more influential, then there's no conflict

[ironmt]

I was actually getting at the notion of changing the history of rock n roll and being one of the core influences behind a decades worth of underground of underground music and a worldwide explosion of alternative music and culture from the early 90s onwards, lets be clear about this, it's a helluva lot more than "a few alternative bands" but look, it's clear you don't actually have a point to make or anything to refer to, you're just gonna shag the same dead horse here nor do you appear to have much of an awareness about what you've taken upon yourself to comment on, I mean you've yet to even cite one single way in which Guns n Roses were at all influential in music in a historical context except to say that they sold a lot of records so lets just draw a line under this, until you feel like you wanna have a discussion or something, in which case, i'll be around, thanks, good talking to ya

I have nothing to prove, you are the one that needs to prove something, anyway here Is a little history, just for you, by the way I'm glad to here that you are familier with Guns N Roses as you referenced a song title of theres In your post(Dead Horse). Now back to history, Guns n Roses have the best-selling debut of all time, both in the U.S. and worldwide. August 31st, 1991 - Wembley Stadium in London England.

72000 tickets were sold out in record breaking time. No artist had sold out the venue this fast before G N R.

September 17th 1991 Use Your Illusion released at number one and number two on the Billboard charts. They marked the first time a major contemporary rock artist had released two separate albums on the same day. November 25th, 1992 biggest show ever staged in Venezuela. Guns N Roses embarked on the longest tour in rock history, They played a total of 192 dates in 27 countries to over 7 million fans grossing 58 million. So there It Is, I could go on and on but In your mind you are right, guess what you are entitled to your opinion. Just remember who your boy Tommy Stinson works for.

Again, this is all stuff related to commerce...sales, making money, it has nothing to do with the point i've been making which i think has escaped you a little and that was that i think that The Replacements, based on the reasons i've mentioned earlier in the thread, have had a bigger effect on the history of music and the industry, what you're doing is citing attendance records and record sales in response to something that has absolutely nothing to do with what i was talking about. If you have nothing to prove then why are you wasting my time man?!?!?! I made some comments and if you didn't wanna discuss em then say you don't wanna, simple! Or don't respond to the posts. You have yet to even approach addressing my point and so, for the second time of trying, i'm gonna draw a line under this because, with all due respect, i don't think you've understood a word i've said, which is fine, thanks a lot, nice talking to you, God bless

You can think what you like. Everything Is here for everyone to read and they can judge for themselves. I believe I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt(and I could keep giving you FACTS not opinions) on who was more relevant to the history of music but what good would It do. It doesn't get much better than having the best-selling debut of all time, both in the U.S. and worldwide to prove who had the bigger effect on the history of music and the Industry. See the Industry likes bands that sell music, It tends to keep the buisness side of things going. I just found this little tidbit of Information about The Replacements that you might find Interesting, It was not uncommon for the group to play entire sets of covers, ranging anywhere from Bryan Adams' "Summer of '69" to Dusty Springfield's "The Look of Love" to Led Zeppelin's "Black Dog." Now Is that your Idea Of a band that were trend setters and making a huge mark on the music Industry. If so you are way out there and beyond any help.

[Apollo]

Oh Len. The way you twist things......always good for a laugh.

I have been staying away from most of your posts. But occassionally........as this is a FORUM........I will probably respond to things you post. You are actually bashing me for responding to people on a forum? I need to look up the definition of what a forum is, as I thought it was a place that you went to for discussion. Weird.

But that little ramble by you pretty much explains how you post on here. First you bash me for NOT responding quick enough to your posts, which led to life judgements against me and I'm still not sure about the wife thing that brought you so much pleasure for some reason. But I didn't respond FAST enough to your posts..........and now you are bashing me for responding to your posts.

Pretty easy to "think" you win a debate when you argue both sides!!!!!!

But back on topic.

Music sales do not dictate talent or how a band influenced a genre or music.

But like it or not, success does play a factor in a band's legacy or in how we rate/rank them.

Think of a picture that your 4 year old daughter paints. To you it is the most beautiful thing ever painted. You tell her how great and awesome it is. But to the rest of the world it looks like a bunch of paint thrown on a canvas by a small child.

You can put out as many albums as you want, with a small group of people saying they are full of the best music ever created........but if only 200 people agree with you, then can it really be that great? If the music doesn't appeal to enough people, then how great can it really be? Britney Spears selling 100 million records doesn't mean she is the best song writer or performer ever. It means her music fills a HUGE niche in the world. So she has had a bigger influence on the music world than some alternative folk songwriter who sells 100 copies of every album (even if the folk writer is 100 times more talented).

But instead of insults or going off on weird avenues that nobody brought up, can you simply answer this question.

If GnR and The Replacements both reunited tomorrow, which band would draw more attention from record labels to sign them, from promoters wanting to book them for tours. Which band would sell more copies of their album and which band would sell more tickets on tour?

Not saying success indicates talent or how much you influence music......just asking specifically, in terms of these two bands - which one would draw more interest?

[Damn_Smooth]

Fuck this article. I don't give a shit about who's more influential, Tommy has earned more than enough respect to not be called "the man who pretends to be in Guns N 'Roses Duff McKagan ". I'm pretty sure that Duff himself would agree seeing as he himself was heavily influenced by punk bands including The Replacements.

[Apollo]

Oh, and the bet thing that you like to keep bringing up. Per usual, you blow everything so out of porportion it's not even funny.

The majority of people in the boxing world (boxers, promoters, media) knows that Floyd has been dodging the Manny fight. You are in the group of about 10% that don't believe this, and actually believe the opposite to be true. Simply because of your thinking Floyd is the greatest thing ever.

After about 10 posts from each of us debating this and arguing about who the better fighter is, a debate that turned into personal attacks and insults, I simply made you a bet.

If Manny wins, you will leave the forum.

If Floyd wins, I would leave the forum.

If we were neighbors or worked together, we could have a fun bet of a thousand dollars or the loser comes and cooks the winner breakfast/lunch/dinner for a week or the loser has to shave their head. Something crazy, since we both are 99% sure that we are right and the other person is wrong.

Since we don't know each other, I suggested a bet that was somewhat meaningful to both of us. I know that Manny would win the fight, and I know that the odds of Floyd actually stepping into the ring with manny is pretty slim. (Inspite of how excited a tweet from floyd makes you).

Instead of taking the bet or not........you go off on a side rant about forum lives. Overblowing and putting more meaning into everything, like you always do. Now tell me how much of a c*nt I am, insult my posts, insult my real life behavior, say I don't respond to your posts fast enough.....but also complain when I do respond to them, etc, etc, etc.

So ya wanna bet or not? Got any confidence in the dodger big-talker Floyd?

[Guest Len B'stard]

Groghan, i've tried umpteen times now to draw a line under this little internet grudge of yours, so once again, for the millionth time, can we just leave it please?

[wasted]

I think GNRs influence is more inspiration than cultural or social impact. Because there style is more conservative, it's not like a revolution. Which I think is fair, its just good music. It's more about attitude or ambition. Maybe not the most worthy of causes but bands like Manics, Oasis, Avenged Sevenfold, Buckcherry, Strokes have all name checked them. In someways GNR really opened the door for grunge bands. GNR brought back the rougher edge, Nirvana just took it further. GNR turned spandex to leather.