Rate your current level of satisfaction as a GNR fan

[Chris 55]

Same set list,Axl sounding worst than ever,again the ghost of delays,another tour with no new music,no reunion......

A big 1.

So what you are saying is that NO tour, NO interviews, NO new web page, NO live streams, NO talk about a new record, would be...better??

What you dont realize is that for me its the same situation,because im just tired of seeing the same setlist with his new awesome voice.For me there is NO Tour,no interviews,no live streams,no new record.Because ive seen all last year,and the year before,and the year before.

You seriously don't think you would have been even more dissatisfied if GN'R wasn't on tour? If GN'R didn't talk about a new record? If GN'R didn't do lots of interviews? You are not able to see there is some water in the glass at all? You don't possess the slightest ability to realize that if you are ever to be satisfied the band must be active and that whatever happens now could potentially lead into whatever it is that you desire, and that if NOTHING happened at all, the probability of you being completely satisfied with GN'R in the future would be smaller, hence you should appreciate the current situation more than a potential situation with no activity at all? This is all lost on you?

What score would you give to your satisfaction if it was revealed that the band hadn't written any of their songs, but basically used a time of ghost writers since 1985, penning out both Axl lyrics and Slash's solos, and in addition strategically made up a completely fake history and style for the band, making them the Milli Vanilli of rock? Would that ALSO be a 1? Would you say you are about as unhappy with the current situation as you would be with my fictional scenario? What about a more realistic scenario: Axl folds up the band and never records music again, the rest of the CD session music is released and it is shit, Slash and Axl continues their childish feud into their 80s. Still a 1? Just as bad as today's situation with a band out entertaining thousands of fans every night, playing all over the world, releasing cool photos, interacting with fans, doing interviews, streaming live shows? Just black and white from you?

Right now,they are coming to my coutry and i cant care less.

Again, that sounds like indifference.

Damn dude, calm down. People are just frustrated that this band of awesome players hasn't been able to produce any new material. It's VERY obvious they'd rather be in the studio than out on tour with all their album talk (and BBF mentioning it). Stop taking this shit so personal.

[SoulMonster]

Damn dude, calm down. People are just frustrated that this band of awesome players hasn't been able to produce any new material. It's VERY obvious they'd rather be in the studio than out on tour with all their album talk (and BBF mentioning it). Stop taking this shit so personal.

I am not arguing against people who are dissatisfied (I am, too, hence giving it an 8), I am arguing against those that say there is no way they could be more dissatisfied; and no, I am not taking it personally and I am as calm as a...uhm, cucumber?

[KiraMPD]

A good ol' neutral 5 for me.

[Eu4ic]

Soulmonster - it is incredibly dissatisfying to me and many others that Axl has resigned himself and Guns n Roses to mediocrity. With Nickelback or Metallica, nobody would care. But GNR = antithesis of mediocrity. That's why it's such a problem.

No wonder there's no fire from Axl. Different tour but practically indistinguishable from the previous one. Ashba sucks. Ron doesnt belong. Tommy doesnt belong. Reed and Pitman are lost causes. Frank and Richard I can tolerate.

Without a doubt, the tour we have this year is worse than having nothing at all. With Guns n Roses, you are either growing or dying. GNR was on an upward trajectory until this year, imo. I am not satisfied, I am not excited about anything except the probability that it cant go on like this forever. This is GNR being a nostalgia act. This is GNR Hell.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Eu4ic

[SoulMonster]

Soulmonster - it is incredibly dissatisfying to me and many others that Axl has resigned himself and Guns n Roses to mediocrity.

Sure, but unless "turning GN'R into mediocrity" is the absolute worst possible fate of the band, then you shouldn't vote 1. One should be left for the absolute lowest of the low, and I am sure what we have today is better than, let's say, Axl turning GN'R into a polka group, or a horrendous European 80s pop music cover band, or a didgeridoo improvisation ensemble, or that he had just quit the band and stopped touring for good. Again, I have no problems with people being dissatisfied for various reasons, just people who believe that today's situation is as bad as it can possibly get. Such people are incredible unimaginative, incredible negative, incredible pathetic, incredible selfish, or just trolling the poll. I ask myself again, what possible value do such people offer to a fan forum?

[Evil Doer]

i would say my rating is an 8 out of 10. saw them recently in hartford and atlantic city and they were two of the best shows i've ever seen. i like the current lineup, i think they have really good chemistry. the only thing keeping me from a 10 out of 10 rating is the lack of new music.

[Eu4ic]

Soulmonster - it is incredibly dissatisfying to me and many others that Axl has resigned himself and Guns n Roses to mediocrity.

Sure, but unless "turning GN'R into mediocrity" is the absolute worst possible fate of the band, then you shouldn't vote 1. One should be left for the absolute lowest of the low, and I am sure what we have today is better than, let's say, Axl turning GN'R into a polka group, or a horrendous European 80s pop music cover band, or a didgeridoo improvisation ensemble, or that he had just quit the band and stopped touring for good. Again, I have no problems with people being dissatisfied for various reasons, just people who believe that today's situation is as bad as it can possibly get. Such people are incredible unimaginative, incredible negative, incredible pathetic, incredible selfish, or just trolling the poll. I ask myself again, what possible value do such people offer to a fan forum?

Letting GNR become a nostalgic money grab is the worst fate for Gnr because it directly contradicts their nature. I dont think polka band or didgeridoo are even in the cards, Soulmonster. But while we're at it, why is polka band worse than becoming a shadow of one's self? You're sounding very arbitrary.

I disagree with your method/rationale that "Hey it can always be worse! What if they were a polka band!" That isn't a good tool of measurement. The proper way is by analyzing what makes Gnr Gnr and by thinking of what opposes its nature most fundamentally. Mediocrity (or, "going through the motions") and being contrived are exactly that.

Its not that the shows are mediocre. I am sure they're mindblowing. But from a broader perspective, the problem is that the set is the same, Axl lacks fire, there's no future in sight and I dont think this band will not make an album together. Therefore it all seems contrived, mediocre, etc.

And really, there's a strong argument to made that if the band wasnt touring between '11'-'12 that I'd be more satisfied with the band today because they'd have preserved the legacy and not tarnished it as they have in two years by squandering all their momentum. Some people say that if GNR died in '94, or '02, or '06 it would've been for the better!

But I do believe that what doesnt kill a band can make them stronger. I believe in Axl and the band Guns n Roses, which is why I'm here saying "Wow there's some concern here unlike I've seen before. I am supremely dissatisfied right now. But it will be Ok!"

Edited June 9, 2012 by Eu4ic

[SoulMonster]

Letting GNR become a nostalgic money grab is the worst fate for Gnr because it directly contradicts their nature.

But surely GN'R not releasing CD and instead ONLY playing old songs and hence being a TRUE nostalgia band would be worse, right? That would contradict even more with what you consider "GN'R's nature" than the current situation were they play 5-8 songs from the recent album on every show in addition to solos and covers?

I dont think polka band or didgeridoo are even in the cards, Soulmonster. But while we're at it, why is polka band worse than becoming a shadow of one's self? You're sounding very arbitrary.

I was just listing some fates that I assumed most would agree was worse than the current situation. If none fitted for you then I am sure you can conceive a worse fate yourself.

I disagree with your method/rationale that "Hey it can always be worse! What if they were a polka band!" That isn't a good tool of measurement. The proper way is by analyzing what makes Gnr Gnr and by thinking of what opposes its nature most fundamentally. Mediocrity (or, "going through the motions") and being contrived are exactly that.

But they could be contrived while NOT playing great shows, they could be mediocre while giving 1 hour shitty concerts, they could have been contrived while releasing a worse album in 2008, etc.

Its not that the shows are mediocre. I am sure they're mindblowing.

Then you agree it could be a lot worse. Or would you be more satisfied if the current band delivered awful concerts? Is that it? You want the band to fail and is disappointed because it surely isn't failing?

But from a broader perspective, the problem is that the set is the same, Axl lacks fire, there's no future in sight and I dont think this band will not make an album together. Therefore it all seems contrived, mediocre, etc.

So you choose to disregard the fact that the setlist changes for every tour, that everyone attending the shows says Axl does a phenomenal job, that the band talks about new music, that we know lots of music exists in various stages of completion, and that the band CLEARLY is prepping for the future by launching a new web site, by creating new merchandise, and by hiring a great photographer to chronicle the shows? And all this is the worst possible for you, because is is "contrived" and "mediocre". Haha

And really, there's a strong argument to made that if the band wasnt touring between '11'-'12 that I'd be more satisfied with the band today because they'd have preserved the legacy and not tarnished it as they have in two years by squandering all their momentum.

A legacy can't be tarnished. What happened, happened and there's no way to change that. No matter what Axl does and no matter what happens with Guns N' Roses from now on will somehow diminish what took place in the heydays of the band, those concerts will still be magical and those songs will still be classical. History is history. Only imbeciles let current affairs rewrite history.

Some people say that if GNR died in '94, or '02, or '06 it would've been for the better!

Why would we care about the moronic opinions of morons? These are people who are so confined in their minds that they believe their own appreciation of what took place before is limited by what happens now. The only thing that happens if a band starts to release bad music is that their average output is lowered, not that the quality of their first albums have somehow automagically been diminished.

[Bruno P.]

Such people are incredible unimaginative, incredible negative, incredible pathetic, incredible selfish, or just trolling the poll. I ask myself again, what possible value do such people offer to a fan forum?

I'll answer - NO value at all. In fact they make the forums much worse.

[Madridista]

I think we can all agree, to a certain degree, that none of us is 100% satisfied with what GnR has become. If we were given the chance to choose between the new GnR and the old lineup, I guess 99.9% of us would choose the latter. The fact that there are so many threads and posts in this forum regarding the new band and if it lives up to the legacy of the old band only means that none of us is really satisfied with GnR as it is today. If we were, we wouldn't even be talking about it. Do you even remember talking about being satisfied or unsatisfied with GnR back in 92 or 94? I'd be surprised if any of you did.

GnR was such a huge band in its heyday that it is almost impossible to make fans forget the original members. They've become larger than life. The old GnR has become one of the most iconic bands in rock history. How can you even think about putting together a band that can come close to what the other guys did? You just can't win. So, as I said in another post, I believe Axl should not have used the name GnR. It'd have been a better move for him. And the legacy wouldn't have been tarnished.

Now, I do think that GnR has become a nostalgia act. I'm willing to be that most of the fans that pay to see GnR nowadays do so because of the old material, NOT because of CD. Granted, it must be cool listening to Better played live, but if CD were the only album GnR ever made, I wonder how many people would pay to see the current band. How would you feel if they didn't play any of the old songs. The fact that the current setlist is mostly based on old material goes to show that, to a certain degree, GnR is a nostalgia band. I know, I know. There are more old songs than new ones, but Axl could've released 4 or 5 albums in 15 years, if he'd wanted to. Most bands release new albums every 2.5 years or every 3 years.

It's hard to be satisfied as a GnR fan, very hard. Some of you ask if we'd rather Gnr did not tour at all, well I have to say yes. I'd rather think back and remember GnR as it was back in 92 and not have Axl tour with a bunch of hired guns, albeit great musicians, tarnishing the legacy of an once awesome band.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Madridista

[Eu4ic]

Letting GNR become a nostalgic money grab is the worst fate for Gnr because it directly contradicts their nature.

But surely GN'R not releasing CD and instead ONLY playing old songs and hence being a TRUE nostalgia band would be worse, right? That would contradict even more with what you consider "GN'R's nature" than the current situation were they play 5-8 songs from the recent album on every show in addition to solos and covers?

I dont think polka band or didgeridoo are even in the cards, Soulmonster. But while we're at it, why is polka band worse than becoming a shadow of one's self? You're sounding very arbitrary.

I was just listing some fates that I assumed most would agree was worse than the current situation. If none fitted for you then I am sure you can conceive a worse fate yourself.

I disagree with your method/rationale that "Hey it can always be worse! What if they were a polka band!" That isn't a good tool of measurement. The proper way is by analyzing what makes Gnr Gnr and by thinking of what opposes its nature most fundamentally. Mediocrity (or, "going through the motions") and being contrived are exactly that.

But they could be contrived while NOT playing great shows, they could be mediocre while giving 1 hour shitty concerts, they could have been contrived while releasing a worse album in 2008, etc.

Its not that the shows are mediocre. I am sure they're mindblowing.

Then you agree it could be a lot worse. Or would you be more satisfied if the current band delivered awful concerts? Is that it? You want the band to fail and is disappointed because it surely isn't failing?

But from a broader perspective, the problem is that the set is the same, Axl lacks fire, there's no future in sight and I dont think this band will not make an album together. Therefore it all seems contrived, mediocre, etc.

So you choose to disregard the fact that the setlist changes for every tour, that everyone attending the shows says Axl does a phenomenal job, that the band talks about new music, that we know lots of music exists in various stages of completion, and that the band CLEARLY is prepping for the future by launching a new web site, by creating new merchandise, and by hiring a great photographer to chronicle the shows? And all this is the worst possible for you, because is is "contrived" and "mediocre". Haha

And really, there's a strong argument to made that if the band wasnt touring between '11'-'12 that I'd be more satisfied with the band today because they'd have preserved the legacy and not tarnished it as they have in two years by squandering all their momentum.

A legacy can't be tarnished. What happened, happened and there's no way to change that. No matter what Axl does and no matter what happens with Guns N' Roses from now on will somehow diminish what took place in the heydays of the band, those concerts will still be magical and those songs will still be classical. History is history. Only imbeciles let current affairs rewrite history.

Some people say that if GNR died in '94, or '02, or '06 it would've been for the better!

Why would we care about the moronic opinions of morons? These are people who are so confined in their minds that they believe their own appreciation of what took place before is limited by what happens now. The only thing that happens if a band starts to release bad music is that their average output is lowered, not that the quality of their first albums have somehow automagically been diminished.

No. They played almost all old songs in ’02 and nobody called them a nostalgia band because their sound/look was different, Axl had fire, and new things were on the horizon at that time. Therefore yes it’s possible to play old stuff and not look like a nostalgia act. GNR did it in ’02. Thus your point doesn’t work.

A legacy cant be tarnished? Why then does such a concept exist?! Tiger Woods was voted greatest athlete of all time by ESPN in about ’07. Do you think if they ran the same poll today that he still would be the greatest? No! His sex scandal destroyed everything! If Kurt Cobain didn’t off himself and got off heroin and made 10 albums of crap over 30 years, I think he moves down on the list of all-time greats, right? Good Lord! I remember MTV voting Pearl Jam’s Jeremy the greatest song of the 1990s when grunge was big but would they say that now? Would Marilyn Manson Antichrist Superstar be voted in the TOP 5 Metal albums ever as it did when he was big in the ‘90s by Circus? We are prisoners of the moment and that is MY POINT, Soulmonster.

Amazing how – without any disclaimer – you used the words “legacy” and “history” interchangably, it seems. You yourself apparently know that they’re not the same thing, which is why you changed your wording, yet you call me – somebody who has done nothing but try to converse with you – an imbecile! Sure, if they release terrible albums the “LEGACY” of AFD doesn’t suffer, but the one of Guns n Roses does! And that's the point!

Yes, believe it or not Soulmonster, new tshirts/website/photog/merchandise does not change the fact that I see a dead-end ahead with the band personnel right now. Rose/Ashba will not be on par with Rose/Stradlin or even Rose/Carroll, and that is extremely dissatisfying to me and countless fans who've come to expect the best from a band that has previously given us the best.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Eu4ic

[AxlRose14]

No albums..no new music.

1

[SoulMonster]

I think we can all agree, to a certain degree, that none of us is 100% satisfied with what GnR has become. If we were given the chance to choose between the new GnR and the old lineup, I guess 99.9% of us would choose the latter. The fact that there are so many threads and posts in this forum regarding the new band and if it lives up to the legacy of the old band only means that none of us is really satisfied with GnR as it is today. If we were, we wouldn't even be talking about it. Do you even remember talking about being satisfied or unsatisfied with GnR back in 92 or 94? I'd be surprised if any of you did.

I was really unsatisfied. I missed Izzy and I hated the backup singers, Teddy and the piano songs.

Some of you ask if we'd rather Gnr did not tour at all, well I have to say yes. I'd rather think back and remember GnR as it was back in 92 and not have Axl tour with a bunch of hired guns, albeit great musicians, tarnishing the legacy of an once awesome band.

How exactly is your enjoyment of classic concerts and albums somehow diminished by the fact that Guns N' Roses still exists but hasn't done anything you feel is as great? I don't understand how anything you do can somehow travel back in time and ruin something that has happened before. When Slash decides to play with rap artists and shit his contributions to AFD isn't affected one iota. It just doesn't work that way. History is history.

[SoulMonster]

No. They played almost all old songs in ’02 and nobody called them a nostalgia band because their sound/look was different, Axl had fire, and new things were on the horizon at that time. Therefore yes it’s possible to play old stuff and not look like a nostalgia act. GNR did it in ’02. Thus your point doesn’t work.

They still catered to the nostalgia effect and thus could be considered a nostalgia act, just like today. If you were so mesmerized by a KFC bucket and a weird goth guy that you didn't recognize that the majority of the sets were old, classic songs, then uhm, good for you?

A legacy cant be tarnished? Why then does such a concept exist?!

Because most people are simpletons who don't think.

Tiger Woods was voted greatest athlete of all time by ESPN in about ’07. Do you think if they ran the same poll today that he still would be the greatest? No!

Of course not, because recent years playing has resulted in his average score being lowered. It doesn't mean that he wasn't brilliant some years ago. Nothing Tiger Woods does today can negatively affect his past accomplishments. It just doesn't work that way. Current events don't change history. What can happen is that his overall standing/stature is raised or lowered depending upon recent activities and how they affect the average. And just like Tiger Woods, Guns N' Roses is past its prime. But the history is unaffected, the history and legacy of what GN'R (or TW) was, is untainted.

Yes, believe it or not Soulmonster, new tshirts/website/photog/merchandise does not change the fact that I see a dead-end ahead with the band personnel right now.

Yes, some people are so convinced by their own opinions that no amount of evidence would make them reconsider. I don't understand why you would advertise this weakness of yours, though.

Rose/Ashba will not be on par with Rose/Stradlin or even Rose/Carroll, and that is extremely dissatisfying to me and countless fans who've come to expect the best from a band that has previously given us the best.

Only morons expect a band will stay constant in terms of quality.

[Madridista]

I think we can all agree, to a certain degree, that none of us is 100% satisfied with what GnR has become. If we were given the chance to choose between the new GnR and the old lineup, I guess 99.9% of us would choose the latter. The fact that there are so many threads and posts in this forum regarding the new band and if it lives up to the legacy of the old band only means that none of us is really satisfied with GnR as it is today. If we were, we wouldn't even be talking about it. Do you even remember talking about being satisfied or unsatisfied with GnR back in 92 or 94? I'd be surprised if any of you did.

I was really unsatisfied. I missed Izzy and I hated the backup singers, Teddy and the piano songs.

Some of you ask if we'd rather Gnr did not tour at all, well I have to say yes. I'd rather think back and remember GnR as it was back in 92 and not have Axl tour with a bunch of hired guns, albeit great musicians, tarnishing the legacy of an once awesome band.

How exactly is your enjoyment of classic concerts and albums somehow diminished by the fact that Guns N' Roses still exists but hasn't done anything you feel is as great? I don't understand how anything you do can somehow travel back in time and ruin something that has happened before. When Slash decides to play with rap artists and shit his contributions to AFD isn't affected one iota. It just doesn't work that way. History is history.

I didn't like the backup singers either, and yes Gnr lost most of its driving force when Izzy left, but most of the original members were still there. The band you fell in love with was still there. And I still enjoy the old albums, in fact, it's the only Gnr material I listen to and fully enjoy. My point is, this new band has not made a truly significant album. It has not surpassed the old band. I'd rather see Axl tour with this band as a solo project. Who in his right mind truly believes this band is better than the old lineup? I'd find that very hard to believe. The old lineup was memorable. This lineup has made 1 album in 15 years. You need to make more music. when will there be a new GnR album? When?

[SoulMonster]

I didn't like the backup singers either, and yes Gnr lost most of its driving force when Izzy left, but most of the original members were still there.

No, only Axl remained of the original members, but most of the AFD lineup still remained, and that mattered to me.

The band you fell in love with was still there.

And it still is. Changed, but still there. Like my grandmother.

And I still enjoy the old albums, in fact, it's the only Gnr material I listen to and fully enjoy.

I never would have imagined!

My point is, this new band has not made a truly significant album. It has not surpassed the old band.

It never will.

I'd rather see Axl tour with this band as a solo project. Who in his right mind truly believes this band is better than the old lineup?

People who prefer songs from CD rather than songs from AFD and UYI? It is just a matter of taste, don't slam people for their musical preferences.

I'd find that very hard to believe. The old lineup was memorable. This lineup has made 1 album in 15 years. You need to make more music. when will there be a new GnR album? When?

My guess is 2014 and definitely before 2018.

[Guest Sleeping Like An Angel]

Some people have picked 10!?

[smokingarthur]

Some people have picked 10!?

People can be as delusional as they want to be, I suppose it has become a perquisite to be a GNR fan these days. There is just nothing utterly interesting about this band other than Axl. I don't foresee Axl releasing or recording a full-on album with this band. I do believe somewhere down the line we will see a release of GNR related material, but I wouldn't say "soon" is the word.

Number 3 for me.........

[Madridista]

I'd rather see Axl tour with this band as a solo project. Who in his right mind truly believes this band is better than the old lineup?

People who prefer songs from CD rather than songs from AFD and UYI? It is just a matter of taste, don't slam people for their musical preferences.

Are you telling me there are fans who prefer CD over AFD and UYI? Now I know you're pulling my leg. Name one song on CD that surpasses anything on AFD or UYI or show me one of those fans.

[Apollo]

Soulmonster you say "don't bash people because of their musical preference".....but you do that in almost every post. People that don't agree with you on the current band are simpletons, morons, imbeciles, etc.

And madrit.....I prefer CD to either Illusion. Imo it is just as good as either one. Songs that are better? I will take Better, Catcher, Twat over My World, Get In The Ring, dust n bones, 14 years, out to get me, double talking jive......every day of the week.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Groghan

[Rustycage]

Soulmonster you say "don't bash people because of their musical preference".....but you do that in almost every post. People that don't agree with you on the current band are simpletons, morons, imbeciles, etc.

This!

[Cosmo]

Who voted 10? SHOW YOUR FACE!!

[Eu4ic]

No. They played almost all old songs in ’02 and nobody called them a nostalgia band because their sound/look was different, Axl had fire, and new things were on the horizon at that time. Therefore yes it’s possible to play old stuff and not look like a nostalgia act. GNR did it in ’02. Thus your point doesn’t work.

They still catered to the nostalgia effect and thus could be considered a nostalgia act, just like today. If you were so mesmerized by a KFC bucket and a weird goth guy that you didn't recognize that the majority of the sets were old, classic songs, then uhm, good for you?

A legacy cant be tarnished? Why then does such a concept exist?!

Because most people are simpletons who don't think.

Tiger Woods was voted greatest athlete of all time by ESPN in about ’07. Do you think if they ran the same poll today that he still would be the greatest? No!

Of course not, because recent years playing has resulted in his average score being lowered. It doesn't mean that he wasn't brilliant some years ago. Nothing Tiger Woods does today can negatively affect his past accomplishments. It just doesn't work that way. Current events don't change history. What can happen is that his overall standing/stature is raised or lowered depending upon recent activities and how they affect the average. And just like Tiger Woods, Guns N' Roses is past its prime. But the history is unaffected, the history and legacy of what GN'R (or TW) was, is untainted.

Yes, believe it or not Soulmonster, new tshirts/website/photog/merchandise does not change the fact that I see a dead-end ahead with the band personnel right now.

Yes, some people are so convinced by their own opinions that no amount of evidence would make them reconsider. I don't understand why you would advertise this weakness of yours, though.

Rose/Ashba will not be on par with Rose/Stradlin or even Rose/Carroll, and that is extremely dissatisfying to me and countless fans who've come to expect the best from a band that has previously given us the best.

Only morons expect a band will stay constant in terms of quality.

No. The ’02 lineup was doing sometimes radically different interpretations of GNR classics. The current however lineup does that stupid guitar riff at the beginning right before Axl says WTTJ that sounds like a cheesy Vegas act. ’02 did not ‘cater to the nostalgia effect.’ Therefore my point that you can play old songs and not be a nostalgia act is plausible. The ’02 versions of KOHD would be obvious examples.

Soulmonster your treatment (or lack thereof) of the distinction between a legacy and history was pathetic and you showed yourself unable to engage in serious conversation. But as you say, “some people are so convinced by their own opinions no amount of evidence would make them reconsider.” I gave several examples of 'current events' changing how history is viewed and you completely ignored them which is disrespectful to the person you're supposedly engaging in conversation.

What’s clear is that although I voted lower on the GNR satisfaction scale that you did, you yourself clearly have a pessimistic view of Guns n Roses, saying they’re “past their prime”, saying “nobody can make good albums their whole career” essentially. That’s a very bleak outlook, unlike mine, which believes that Axl wont release shit music and therefore won’t make very much music (if any) with Rose/Ashba next to it.

If you have any other issues just go back to my previous posts are read carefully instead of filling space on this forum with red herring and straw man arguments.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Eu4ic

[finck6]

Who voted 10? SHOW YOUR FACE!!

i voted 1. i can't get no satisfaction. no no no

[SoulMonster]

Are you telling me there are fans who prefer CD over AFD and UYI? Now I know you're pulling my leg. Name one song on CD that surpasses anything on AFD or UYI or show me one of those fans.

Yes, there are people who prefer CD to AFD and UYI (I don't remember their nicknames, though), and although I am not one of those, I do like There Was A Time more than any old GN'R songs.

Soulmonster you say "don't bash people because of their musical preference".....but you do that in almost every post. People that don't agree with you on the current band are simpletons, morons, imbeciles, etc.

I NEVER bash anybody because of their musical preferences. If you had some integrity you would use an example to prove your point, but you can't.