Jump to content

Rate your current level of satisfaction as a GNR fan


Rate your current level of satisfaction as a GNR fan  

298 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I must be wrong because the people who only watch some lame Youtube videos know everything better.

:rofl-lol:

Finding a new singer is Slash's Chinese Democracy.

Nobody with talent actually wants to record and tour with Slash...so it won't happen. At least CD came out.

10!!!

Last night in Rotterdam was the best show I've ever been to!

+1

Edited by volcano62
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 289
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ι think that those of us who watch the YouTube videos can be more objective. Sure, many are crappy and you can't really tell, however we all saw the pro-shots, RiR and many HQ ones that showed a pretty mediocre band with an even more mediocre singer. The people who actually went to the concerts can be (and really are) biased, simply because they have spent money on tickets and got to see one of their favourite bands on stage with many others. I am sure it was an incredible experience but please leave judging the performance to people with a more objective approach.

As for voting, I voted for less than 5 (along with over 50 other members, so the whole "this forum represents people who love the band"crap, can stop), because of the endless tour, Axl's awful voice, DJ's rumours, bad solos, and extra long shows (which I consider to be a bad thing since they expose the band's many weaknesses).

Edited by Sonic Reducer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ι think that those of us who watch the YouTube videos can be more objective. Sure, many are crappy and you can't really tell, however we all saw the pro-shots, RiR and many HQ ones that showed a pretty mediocre band with an even more mediocre singer. The people who actually went to the concerts can be (and really are) biased, simply because they have spent money on tickets and got to see one of their favourite bands on stage with many others. I am sure it was an incredible experience but please leave judging the performance to people with a more objective approach.

I don't care what objective people might feel. The show is for the audience and if the audience is happy then the shows have succeeded and are per definition good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going on 4 years since CD was released..A follow up seems not likely for a few years at least. If I was betting on the next release, Id say 2015-2016...

Im happy they are out touring.. I remember the1994-2000 years and the 2003-2005 years.. and they fucking sucked!!!

Axl has to play the set list he is playing. It will N E V E R change all that much or drastically. He has done a decent job in throwing in things that die hards wanna hear, but at the end of the day he's gotta play the material that puts people in the arena... I get it

A new album every 2-3 years would be amazing but its just not how Axl operates. Sad..but it is what it is.

Edited by Download
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are playing songs you wanted to hear in the late 90's and the amount of down time they had during the 00's, I don't see an issue with Axl having the desire to get out and perform for his fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ι think that those of us who watch the YouTube videos can be more objective. Sure, many are crappy and you can't really tell, however we all saw the pro-shots, RiR and many HQ ones that showed a pretty mediocre band with an even more mediocre singer. The people who actually went to the concerts can be (and really are) biased, simply because they have spent money on tickets and got to see one of their favourite bands on stage with many others. I am sure it was an incredible experience but please leave judging the performance to people with a more objective approach.

I don't care what objective people might feel. The show is for the audience and if the audience is happy then the shows have succeeded and are per definition good.

No, you see the show is for everyone. It's not just for entertaining the audience, it's for promoting the band and getting more people to go to the future shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ι think that those of us who watch the YouTube videos can be more objective. Sure, many are crappy and you can't really tell, however we all saw the pro-shots, RiR and many HQ ones that showed a pretty mediocre band with an even more mediocre singer. The people who actually went to the concerts can be (and really are) biased, simply because they have spent money on tickets and got to see one of their favourite bands on stage with many others. I am sure it was an incredible experience but please leave judging the performance to people with a more objective approach.

I don't care what objective people might feel. The show is for the audience and if the audience is happy then the shows have succeeded and are per definition good.

No, you see the show is for everyone. It's not just for entertaining the audience, it's for promoting the band and getting more people to go to the future shows.

Yes, and they do that by putting on a spectacular show that leaves the audiences content and the reviewers happy, not by somehow catering to Internet nerds who compare live music with studio recordings and who obsessively nitpick at minor details while at the same time not realizing that live shows are much more than the objective quality of the live music as rendered through recordings. The band HAS to prioritize the fans that pay to be part of the audiences, and by all measures they are doing this rather successfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ι think that those of us who watch the YouTube videos can be more objective. Sure, many are crappy and you can't really tell, however we all saw the pro-shots, RiR and many HQ ones that showed a pretty mediocre band with an even more mediocre singer. The people who actually went to the concerts can be (and really are) biased, simply because they have spent money on tickets and got to see one of their favourite bands on stage with many others. I am sure it was an incredible experience but please leave judging the performance to people with a more objective approach.

I don't care what objective people might feel. The show is for the audience and if the audience is happy then the shows have succeeded and are per definition good.

No, you see the show is for everyone. It's not just for entertaining the audience, it's for promoting the band and getting more people to go to the future shows.

Yes, and they do that by putting on a spectacular show that leaves the audiences content and the reviewers happy, not by somehow catering to Internet nerds who compare live music with studio recordings and who obsessively nitpick at minor details while at the same time not realizing that live shows are much more than the objective quality of the live music as rendered through recordings. The band HAS to prioritize the fans that pay to be part of the audiences, and by all measures they are doing this rather successfully.

The shows are not spectacular by any means. Axl has a bad voice and there is no way you can deny it. I have never heard of anyone expecting live performances to sound the same as studio recordings, but the current situation is just bad.

Edited by Sonic Reducer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ι think that those of us who watch the YouTube videos can be more objective. Sure, many are crappy and you can't really tell, however we all saw the pro-shots, RiR and many HQ ones that showed a pretty mediocre band with an even more mediocre singer. The people who actually went to the concerts can be (and really are) biased, simply because they have spent money on tickets and got to see one of their favourite bands on stage with many others. I am sure it was an incredible experience but please leave judging the performance to people with a more objective approach.

I don't care what objective people might feel. The show is for the audience and if the audience is happy then the shows have succeeded and are per definition good.

No, you see the show is for everyone. It's not just for entertaining the audience, it's for promoting the band and getting more people to go to the future shows.

Yes, and they do that by putting on a spectacular show that leaves the audiences content and the reviewers happy, not by somehow catering to Internet nerds who compare live music with studio recordings and who obsessively nitpick at minor details while at the same time not realizing that live shows are much more than the objective quality of the live music as rendered through recordings. The band HAS to prioritize the fans that pay to be part of the audiences, and by all measures they are doing this rather successfully.

The shows are not spectacular by any means. Axl has a bad voice and there is no way you can deny it. I have never heard of anyone expecting live performances to sound the same as studio recordings, but the current situation is just bad.

Now you are just trolling us I believe. Scan us a copy of the tickets for the shows you have attended in which helped you to come up with these conclusions.

Edited by volcano62
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 for me

I was 18 when GNR made a splash...im half way through my life now..I go to a Guns Show and hear the same material from 10-25 years ago...disappointing to a degree...nice nostalgia show. i have to laugh..they play a song from the old catalog and some of you Axl lites grab crotch and start stroking...not realizing that the talent in this band could be shaking the setlist up every night..but they hide behind jams, covers of other bands and ultimately music from the past decades..But hey its a good show for the most part...Axl goes through his paces shows up two hours late- crowds cheer and jeer...critics critique, Fanboys gag and ultimately swallow, Fans bitch and moan...life goes on pretty much the same as it ever did...all so very cliche and "normal" Dj "hints" about new music...other band members stare blankly like deer caughtin headlights when asked about status of so called "band" and new music....MYGNR.COM hold its collective breath for new insights only to devolve into the same pissing contests

Now..with the massive amounts of time gone by that seems so empty and wasted..and ultimately pointless .no matter how hard i try to think this is the equal or better incarnation of that band...the total lack of new music sours any enthusiasm....WHOOPIE..GNR is touring Chinese Democracy again...oooooh let me book a flight....

really ---3-4 ....seeing how anything im hearing out there is the legacy bands from 85-93's material on the radio...a blast from the past to remind me of the great promise this band evoked back in the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and they do that by putting on a spectacular show that leaves the audiences content and the reviewers happy, not by somehow catering to Internet nerds who compare live music with studio recordings and who obsessively nitpick at minor details while at the same time not realizing that live shows are much more than the objective quality of the live music as rendered through recordings. The band HAS to prioritize the fans that pay to be part of the audiences, and by all measures they are doing this rather successfully.

The shows are not spectacular by any means. Axl has a bad voice and there is no way you can deny it. I have never heard of anyone expecting live performances to sound the same as studio recordings, but the current situation is just bad.

Oh? Which shows did you attend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1

Fascinating. Please tell me how there is no way you could be less satisfied about Guns N' Roses considering that you give them the lowest value on the scale. Would you be more satisfied if the band stopped touring and just disappeared out of the radar? Would you be more satisfied if the band didn't do live streams? Would you be more satisfied if new leaks didn't show up occasionally signalling more music in the future? Would you be more satisfied if the band didn't have a stable lineup and apparently had great chemistry? Would you be more satisfied if the band didn't recently make an effort to launch a new web site indicating that the band is gearing up for the future? Would you be more satisfied if the band didn't do lots of interviews and being really accessible to fans? Would you be more satisfied if GN'R cancelled shows and tours? What score would you have given to the band in 1998? Or in 2002? Or in 2005? Or in 2007?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest NewGNRnOldGNR

AFD, UYI and particularly CD are a definate 10. Tours, of which I've seen two shows, would also be a ten. I don't have anything material to complain about. Speculative opinions regarding Axl's ambitions are completely unfounded, until he categorically declares his disinterest in the creation and release of new tracks I'm happy. He's still, whether rightly or wrongly, and as illustrated in the Trunk interview, pushing CD. I accept that and will continue to attend shows local to me supporting that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bumblefoot is constantly out of tune

For a man that has an active perfect pitch since a very young age, I'm sorry but you're trying to hit a wall.

As for the thread, I'm voting 5. More CD songs being played as well as new songs (And proshot recordings of them) and then two more albums would make a 10, no doubt. I'm voting 5 because they could be much more than they are now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1

Fascinating. Please tell me how there is no way you could be less satisfied about Guns N' Roses considering that you give them the lowest value on the scale. Would you be more satisfied if the band stopped touring and just disappeared out of the radar? Would you be more satisfied if the band didn't do live streams? Would you be more satisfied if new leaks didn't show up occasionally signalling more music in the future? Would you be more satisfied if the band didn't have a stable lineup and apparently had great chemistry? Would you be more satisfied if the band didn't recently make an effort to launch a new web site indicating that the band is gearing up for the future? Would you be more satisfied if the band didn't do lots of interviews and being really accessible to fans? Would you be more satisfied if GN'R cancelled shows and tours? What score would you have given to the band in 1998? Or in 2002? Or in 2005? Or in 2007?

It's remarkable that those who give this band a 1 are still obsessed enough in some way to continue following it. Of course, they do remind us of this fact by their very presence in this section. Thumbs up to them for their dedication. thumbsup.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...