Rate your current level of satisfaction as a GNR fan

[Crash Diet]

What is the problem?

This post

I have to say this survey is a great way to identify those members that are either not fans of the current band at all, or those that are just too depressing and negative, to sort of round them up for a mass banning . I mean, what possible benefit could such members have to a fan forum?

This shows me to what a big a.....e are you...

As SOB said:

The good thing is you don't decide or get to force feed your opinions on others. Their opinion counts just as much as yours playa.

[SoulMonster]

What is the problem?

This post

I have to say this survey is a great way to identify those members that are either not fans of the current band at all, or those that are just too depressing and negative, to sort of round them up for a mass banning . I mean, what possible benefit could such members have to a fan forum?

This shows me to what a big a.....e are you...

As SOB said:

The good thing is you don't decide or get to force feed your opinions on others. Their opinion counts just as much as yours playa.

And you get today's Didn't-get-the-joke-even-if-it-was-explicitly-stated-to-be-a-joke-twice award! Congratulations!

But I am still intrigued about this idea that "their opinions counts as much as mine". Why is that? I consider their opinions for completely worthless because they are based on an inability to relatively value a situation whereas mine is not. Please explain what makes their opinion as valuable as mine, and please don't tell me you are one of those guys who feel that any opinion is valuable and that all opinions are equally valuable.

[Flayer]

This shows me to what a big a.....e are you...

Don't puss out. If you want to call Soul Monster an asshole, call him an asshole. Your true opinion is valuable and should be heard regardless of how uncalled for it is.

[Sonic Reducer]

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.

I have only watched the YouTube videos. That's why I can get to say whether the shows are bad or not without being biased. Simple logic, really.

[volcano62]

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.

I have only watched the YouTube videos. That's why I can get to say whether the shows are bad or not without being biased. Simple logic, really.

Oh because youtube has the best quality videos and all critics should base their opinions on them

Folks we have another youtuber amongst us lol

Edited June 6, 2012 by volcano62

[Sonic Reducer]

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.

I have only watched the YouTube videos. That's why I can get to say whether the shows are bad or not without being biased. Simple logic, really.

Oh because youtube has the best quality videos and all critics should base their opinions on them

Folks we have another youtuber amongst us lol

I already explained why youtubers are the most reliable people on the matter.

[SoulMonster]

I already explained why youtubers are the most reliable people on the matter.

But there's no point in caring about what youtubers feel on his issue, the band's objective is to please the audience, not the youtubers, and they apparently succeed quite well. And that is a sensible strategy.

[Kill Devil Hill]

People who selected 10 -- do you have any ambition whatsoever for the band?

[Eu4ic]

I already explained why youtubers are the most reliable people on the matter.

But there's no point in caring about what youtubers feel on his issue, the band's objective is to please the audience, not the youtubers, and they apparently succeed quite well. And that is a sensible strategy.

Soulmonster - I appreciate your civil attempt to find out why some (more than half, probably, on this forum) arent psyched about the present situation in the Gnr world. You may or may not have seen my post on another thread but I'll copy my opinion:

The problem is Axl is supposedly a super productive, highly talented individual who supposedly has the urge to explore new territory, try new things, and challenge everything--even himself. But he's no longer following through on that and he is not challenging himself. He has called insurmountable attention to himself in deed and in word. He took on the GNR name. He spent a decade and a half talking about Chi Dem and then didnt bother to do it justice live. He pissed away a great band that would've arguably filled the shoes of the old lineup. Then he replaced them with a very good band with no apparent tensions but keeps then restricted to the same damn setlist night after night. He's no longer on the Chi Dem Tour and is doing an "Up Close and Personal Tour" that is practically identical to the former tour!!!!!! WTF. I could go on and on and on, about his management issues, or the fact Axl/GNR are head and shoulders above Slash n co. yet Axl's lack of action forces many to second-guess themselves.

So there's that. But furthermore, I've talked about the importance of youtubers many times: Fans use the internet, Gnr personnel uses internet, neurotic Axl is probably obsessed with the internet. WE asked for Dont Cry, Estranged, TWAT and probably not coincidentally, we got them. We represent the core of the core of Gnr's fanbase so we are very important. Finally, people who get on youtube in order to objectively survey how good the band sounds are, by definition, at an advantage at objectively surveying how good the band sounds over fans who go to the shows to have a good time.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Eu4ic

[Nosaj Thing]

People who selected 10 -- do you have any ambition whatsoever for the band?

They would take a bullet for Axl Rose.

[Guest RonMexico82]

1

[RocketQueen1985]

Youtube videos lack all the energy. But hey, Youtubers know best!

"The web knows everything!" - Axl Rose in Paris June 5th 2012

[Flayer]

The idea of Youtubers somehow being a better judge of the concerts is ludicrous. Laugh-out loud ludicrous.

You should try going to an art museum sometime and see how much different it is to see the actual painting itself rather than just a photograph of it from a book or the Internet.

[sailaway]

The idea of Youtubers somehow being a better judge of the concerts is ludicrous. Laugh-out loud ludicrous.

You should try going to an art museum sometime and see how much different it is to see the actual painting itself rather than just a photograph of it from a book or the Internet.

Xactly,well said

[SoulMonster]

I already explained why youtubers are the most reliable people on the matter.

But there's no point in caring about what youtubers feel on his issue, the band's objective is to please the audience, not the youtubers, and they apparently succeed quite well. And that is a sensible strategy.

Soulmonster - I appreciate your civil attempt to find out why some (more than half, probably, on this forum) arent psyched about the present situation in the Gnr world.

Huh? I have no interest in finding out why some people consider the glass only half-full, or variations thereof, I am trying to engage those who claim the glass is completely empty (those that give their current satisfaction a score of 1) into a discussion on why they feel they just couldn't be less satisfied than what they currently are. My position is that as long as the band does some positive things, then people can't be maxed out on dissatisfaction.

Then I have jokingly said that this is an easy way to round up all the miserable losers who offers no value to a fan forum (again, those that voted 1), for a mass banning.

I am not, as you say, interested in hearing the various reasons for why people don't give a 10.

1

And -- TADA! -- here we have one of them! Tell me, RonMexico82, why is it that you can't be any less satisfied with the current band? How come you don't see anything positive with the current band? Why is the current situation as bad as it can possibly be for you?

[The_Universal_Sigh]

I'm a fan of music. If a band is still together, than I'm a fan of their new music. If they're touring for nostalgia like the Pixies, I'm okay with that too, so long as it's out in the open. Here's two examples of bands still going but on very different sets of principles:

The Pixies are touring Doolittle, an album that came out in 1988 or 89 I believe. There is no news and no hype of a new album coming - no ones expects this. It is all nostalgia and rocking to the songs everyone knows and loves. For this, they deserve a steady 7/10. They're doing what they're doing, they're honest, it's the original group, they're on time, they pick cool openers, they play smaller sized shows, they're happy on stage. 7/10 is fair. The show is great and you know what you're getting into. No news, no new albums, few interviews, all nostalgia and dirty rock from the dirty people who wrote it.

Metallica tour constantly, they do in fact release in new music every so often though in my opinion it sucks. Their new music sucks but they're pointing themselves out there, trying new things, promoting the new things, and playing lots of old and new songs. You get the vibe there is something on the horizon at all times. Their festival coming up is a good example. 8/10. That's 80% awesome for a band that's putting out about 4 decent songs an album overall since 1990. They don't release classics anymore but some songs do kick ass, they respect their fans and they move forward.

GNR is the worst of both these bands. They ARE touring strictly off nostalgia but the original members are not there. They pretend something is on the horizon but there's nothing. There is sporadic news and hype of a new album(s) but nothing ever comes of it. They're late all the time like the audience should have to wait because they're about to see something unbelievable and never before seen.... though it's the same show over and over. Axl rarely looks happy on stage. The biggest part of the show, since they refuse to release new music, is nostalgia... nostalgia for music written largely by people no longer in the band.

So they're largely about nostalgic like the Pixies but not honest about it, and they pretend it's a current on-going band with stuff on the horizon like Metallica but there isn't anything.

I voted 4, should have picked 3.

They're pretending to move forward like Metallica, but don't move at all.

[Guest RonMexico82]

Very well said. There is another phrase for what you outlined - a sham.

[Tomek1985]

I'm a fan of music. If a band is still together, than I'm a fan of their new music. If they're touring for nostalgia like the Pixies, I'm okay with that too, so long as it's out in the open. Here's two examples of bands still going but on very different sets of principles:

The Pixies are touring Doolittle, an album that came out in 1988 or 89 I believe. There is no news and no hype of a new album coming - no ones expects this. It is all nostalgia and rocking to the songs everyone knows and loves. For this, they deserve a steady 7/10. They're doing what they're doing, they're honest, it's the original group, they're on time, they pick cool openers, they play smaller sized shows, they're happy on stage. 7/10 is fair. The show is great and you know what you're getting into. No news, no new albums, few interviews, all nostalgia and dirty rock from the dirty people who wrote it.

Metallica tour constantly, they do in fact release in new music every so often though in my opinion it sucks. Their new music sucks but they're pointing themselves out there, trying new things, promoting the new things, and playing lots of old and new songs. You get the vibe there is something on the horizon at all times. Their festival coming up is a good example. 8/10. That's 80% awesome for a band that's putting out about 4 decent songs an album overall since 1990. They don't release classics anymore but some songs do kick ass, they respect their fans and they move forward.

GNR is the worst of both these bands. They ARE touring strictly off nostalgia but the original members are not there. They pretend something is on the horizon but there's nothing. There is sporadic news and hype of a new album(s) but nothing ever comes of it. They're late all the time like the audience should have to wait because they're about to see something unbelievable and never before seen.... though it's the same show over and over. Axl rarely looks happy on stage. The biggest part of the show, since they refuse to release new music, is nostalgia... nostalgia for music written largely by people no longer in the band.

So they're largely about nostalgic like the Pixies but not honest about it, and they pretend it's a current on-going band with stuff on the horizon like Metallica but there isn't anything.

I voted 4, should have picked 3.

They're pretending to move forward like Metallica, but don't move at all.

Agree 100%

3

[bacardimayne]

I'm a fan of music. If a band is still together, than I'm a fan of their new music. If they're touring for nostalgia like the Pixies, I'm okay with that too, so long as it's out in the open. Here's two examples of bands still going but on very different sets of principles:

The Pixies are touring Doolittle, an album that came out in 1988 or 89 I believe. There is no news and no hype of a new album coming - no ones expects this. It is all nostalgia and rocking to the songs everyone knows and loves. For this, they deserve a steady 7/10. They're doing what they're doing, they're honest, it's the original group, they're on time, they pick cool openers, they play smaller sized shows, they're happy on stage. 7/10 is fair. The show is great and you know what you're getting into. No news, no new albums, few interviews, all nostalgia and dirty rock from the dirty people who wrote it.

Metallica tour constantly, they do in fact release in new music every so often though in my opinion it sucks. Their new music sucks but they're pointing themselves out there, trying new things, promoting the new things, and playing lots of old and new songs. You get the vibe there is something on the horizon at all times. Their festival coming up is a good example. 8/10. That's 80% awesome for a band that's putting out about 4 decent songs an album overall since 1990. They don't release classics anymore but some songs do kick ass, they respect their fans and they move forward.

GNR is the worst of both these bands. They ARE touring strictly off nostalgia but the original members are not there. They pretend something is on the horizon but there's nothing. There is sporadic news and hype of a new album(s) but nothing ever comes of it. They're late all the time like the audience should have to wait because they're about to see something unbelievable and never before seen.... though it's the same show over and over. Axl rarely looks happy on stage. The biggest part of the show, since they refuse to release new music, is nostalgia... nostalgia for music written largely by people no longer in the band.

So they're largely about nostalgic like the Pixies but not honest about it, and they pretend it's a current on-going band with stuff on the horizon like Metallica but there isn't anything.

I voted 4, should have picked 3.

They're pretending to move forward like Metallica, but don't move at all.

I agree with most of this, but what's the problem with doing a nostalgia tour without the original band? Why should Axl not have the same right to play the songs that he's famous for? Because he doesn't get along with Slash? Horseshit.

And don't bring up the name. That's an entirely different argument.

[WhazUp]

I'm a fan of music. If a band is still together, than I'm a fan of their new music. If they're touring for nostalgia like the Pixies, I'm okay with that too, so long as it's out in the open. Here's two examples of bands still going but on very different sets of principles:

The Pixies are touring Doolittle, an album that came out in 1988 or 89 I believe. There is no news and no hype of a new album coming - no ones expects this. It is all nostalgia and rocking to the songs everyone knows and loves. For this, they deserve a steady 7/10. They're doing what they're doing, they're honest, it's the original group, they're on time, they pick cool openers, they play smaller sized shows, they're happy on stage. 7/10 is fair. The show is great and you know what you're getting into. No news, no new albums, few interviews, all nostalgia and dirty rock from the dirty people who wrote it.

Metallica tour constantly, they do in fact release in new music every so often though in my opinion it sucks. Their new music sucks but they're pointing themselves out there, trying new things, promoting the new things, and playing lots of old and new songs. You get the vibe there is something on the horizon at all times. Their festival coming up is a good example. 8/10. That's 80% awesome for a band that's putting out about 4 decent songs an album overall since 1990. They don't release classics anymore but some songs do kick ass, they respect their fans and they move forward.

GNR is the worst of both these bands. They ARE touring strictly off nostalgia but the original members are not there. They pretend something is on the horizon but there's nothing. There is sporadic news and hype of a new album(s) but nothing ever comes of it. They're late all the time like the audience should have to wait because they're about to see something unbelievable and never before seen.... though it's the same show over and over. Axl rarely looks happy on stage. The biggest part of the show, since they refuse to release new music, is nostalgia... nostalgia for music written largely by people no longer in the band.

So they're largely about nostalgic like the Pixies but not honest about it, and they pretend it's a current on-going band with stuff on the horizon like Metallica but there isn't anything.

I voted 4, should have picked 3.

They're pretending to move forward like Metallica, but don't move at all.

Great post, I completely agree with your reasoning

[The_Universal_Sigh]

I agree with most of this, but what's the problem with doing a nostalgia tour without the original band? Why should Axl not have the same right to play the songs that he's famous for? Because he doesn't get along with Slash? Horseshit.

And don't bring up the name. That's an entirely different argument.

Well that's a minor point in the post. Of course it sucks for nostalgia's sake if the people involved in those nostalgic memories aren't involved but that's not the main issues I'm talking about. If it was known this was a nostalgic thing strictly as that than I'd give it more of a 5.5

It would be akin to the Pixies, if not higher, if it was the original band doing a nostalgic thing and probably higher still if the band was still going musically (regardless of line-up)

[SoulMonster]

GNR is the worst of both these bands. They ARE touring strictly off nostalgia but the original members are not there.

Axl is there. He is a founding member. And they are not only playing old songs, they play a large number of CD songs during every concert.

They pretend something is on the horizon but there's nothing.

That is just something you believe.

Axl rarely looks happy on stage.

What??

The biggest part of the show, since they refuse to release new music, is nostalgia... nostalgia for music written largely by people no longer in the band.

Yes, and that is exactly what you would expect from a band of GN'R's stature with such a strong back catalogue. They will always rely on the classics because the audiences will demand to hear them.

So they're largely about nostalgic like the Pixies but not honest about it,

What is dishonest with GN'R's concerts?

and they pretend it's a current on-going band with stuff on the horizon like Metallica but there isn't anything.

Again you commit the cardinal sin of presenting your subjective beliefs as they were fact...

They're pretending to move forward like Metallica, but don't move at all.

And again...

[Bruno P.]

Bumblefoot is constantly out of tune

Hey man, how are you doing?

Is Ron still playing out of tune or did he fix it already? I read somewhere that his active perfect pitch would be enough for him to do it but a part of me also doesn't believe that such things exist. Can you imagine a souless shredder with an active absolute pitch? THAT'S CRAZY. Yes, that's why he, according to you, is constantly playing out of tune, because he is a liar and people around him are a bunch of hired hands, hacks. He may have absolute pitch but he doesnt have the technique to play Slash's songs on the right key, to play everything in tune, so that means shit. He'd still be a hack. Also his fretless intonation means shit because his ears are really bad, he can't play fretless as well!!

Hope you can give me an answer because I'm really mad at Ron for being constantly out of tune.

Best regards,

Bruno

[Eu4ic]

The idea of Youtubers somehow being a better judge of the concerts is ludicrous. Laugh-out loud ludicrous.

You should try going to an art museum sometime and see how much different it is to see the actual painting itself rather than just a photograph of it from a book or the Internet.

Yes but the purpose going to an art museum, for most, is to objectively survey the art works; the purpose of going to a GNR gig, for most, is not to objectively survey and critique Guns n Roses - the purpose is to have a good time; they go with friends and get loaded and get rowdy - quite different than going to an art museum for most!

Furthermore most artists in the Louvre didnt make art to please the spectator but to confront the spectator and challenge the status quo. Yet it's pretty clear Axl is playing to the crowds tastes.

Part of why I am disappointed with the band now is that Axl pretends to be one of these artists yet he's clearly playing to the crowd. Nothing wrong with that, just call it like it is.

Finally, I never said youtube is the most objective way to analyze a show - I said that people who go on youtube TO objectively analyze the show are probably better at giving an objective account OF the show than people who to the show to have a good time.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Eu4ic

[The_Universal_Sigh]

GNR is the worst of both these bands. They ARE touring strictly off nostalgia but the original members are not there.

Axl is there. He is a founding member. And they are not only playing old songs, they play a large number of CD songs during every concert.

They pretend something is on the horizon but there's nothing.

That is just something you believe.

Axl rarely looks happy on stage.

What??

The biggest part of the show, since they refuse to release new music, is nostalgia... nostalgia for music written largely by people no longer in the band.

Yes, and that is exactly what you would expect from a band of GN'R's stature with such a strong back catalogue. They will always rely on the classics because the audiences will demand to hear them.

So they're largely about nostalgic like the Pixies but not honest about it,

What is dishonest with GN'R's concerts?

and they pretend it's a current on-going band with stuff on the horizon like Metallica but there isn't anything.

Again you commit the cardinal sin of presenting your subjective beliefs as they were fact...

They're pretending to move forward like Metallica, but don't move at all.

And again...

Yaaaaaawwwwwn. Soul Monster disagrees with me.

The idea of Youtubers somehow being a better judge of the concerts is ludicrous. Laugh-out loud ludicrous.

You should try going to an art museum sometime and see how much different it is to see the actual painting itself rather than just a photograph of it from a book or the Internet.

Not sure exactly what you're referring to but something a lot of you people who say "youtube videos don't do them justice!" miss is that there are PLENTY of youtube videos of similar, and lesser, quality where you can tell an amazing performance is happening. If you watch videos of comparable quality from different eras, different bands, you see (now this may be surprising to a lot of you) that bands can sound AMAZING on youtube videos. Cell phone vids with crowd noise can show energy just exploding.

The idea of youtube videos being compared to other youtube videos of similar quality is just as fair a comparison as going to two different shows where you're sitting in the same spot. Not saying it's as awesome, or the exact same perspective, of course it's not, but it's just as fair an indicator of differences in quality.

Edited June 7, 2012 by The_Universal_Sigh