Can the hardcore fan ever be pleased?

[dalsh327]

I haven't posted in a while, but I have been thinking of this question. Now, we are all very passionate about Guns N' Roses, no one can deny this. But I have realised there is just something about being a hardcore fan that always leaves you expecting more from your favourite artist.

Reason I am bringing this up is because I saw two Bruce Springsteen shows the other week. Best gigs I have ever seen, and he played 52 different songs on those two nights. Personally couldn't have asked for more, they were out of this world. Yet, in my first foray into the hardcore Boss communities, I find many of the very same complaints that are aired here.

If we stick to Springsteen, he has played over 130 (!!!!) different songs this tour, but there is still bitching about the setlists. Dancing In The Dark is played too much, the rarities aren't rare enough or too rare, the lesser played songs are too few in between or too many, too many covers, no Clarence... And it made me realize it is a battle no artist can ever win.

I think it is just in the very nature of a hardcore fan to always want more as a reward for their obsession. And the criticism is always the harshest from the keyboard warriors who aren't even attending the shows. I am not saying we shouldn't voice our dissatisfaction, sometimes it is perfectly valid, but often things are taken out of context.

What are your thoughts on this?

I think people were complaining about too many new songs, but Springsteen canvassed a lot of territory since 1998, so the fans have gotten spoiled. He's played festivals just because it's a good way to get to see what other bands are doing, and join them on stage. It's not about ego, it's just supporting what he likes.

Bruce at this point is doing music for the love of music, he's still being inspired by what's going on in the world. He's been fired up since "The Rising" to "Wrecking Ball",it's kind of the same as Neil Young wanting to keep putting music out, but at their respective ages, have to mine the archives before they get old.

I do wonder when Axl was at the Sopranos premiere, if Van Zandt had said "WTF is taking you so fucking long with that Chinese Democracy thing". He's part of the reason GNR were inducted into the Rock Hall, BTW. And he also hosted the NY Dolls at his Underground Garage fest, so don't think he's excluding them.

Most Springsteen fans appreciate he's still out there at 62-63 years, even though Federici and Big Man are gone.

[Dazey]

How do you figure every 4-5 years?

He started the ball rolling in 1999 or 2000. There was public talk of an album in 2001.....all the way through 2006......before finally in 2008. It is now 2012 with no news of an album in the future. That is 12-13 years that Axl has been touring (not every year, obviously) and he has released one album. I'm not being sarcastic or trying to fight here, but how in the world do you whittle that down to an album ever 4-5 years?

In a strictly technical sense from 1987 we've had Appetite, Lies, Illusion 1&2, Spaghetti Incident and CD so taking an average it is one album every 5 years however to state that without clarifying the details would be disingenuous to the extreme.

[YOUCOULDBEMINE.]

I haven't posted in a while, but I have been thinking of this question. Now, we are all very passionate about Guns N' Roses, no one can deny this. But I have realised there is just something about being a hardcore fan that always leaves you expecting more from your favourite artist.

Reason I am bringing this up is because I saw two Bruce Springsteen shows the other week. Best gigs I have ever seen, and he played 52 different songs on those two nights. Personally couldn't have asked for more, they were out of this world. Yet, in my first foray into the hardcore Boss communities, I find many of the very same complaints that are aired here.

If we stick to Springsteen, he has played over 130 (!!!!) different songs this tour, but there is still bitching about the setlists. Dancing In The Dark is played too much, the rarities aren't rare enough or too rare, the lesser played songs are too few in between or too many, too many covers, no Clarence... And it made me realize it is a battle no artist can ever win.

I think it is just in the very nature of a hardcore fan to always want more as a reward for their obsession. And the criticism is always the harshest from the keyboard warriors who aren't even attending the shows. I am not saying we shouldn't voice our dissatisfaction, sometimes it is perfectly valid, but often things are taken out of context.

What are your thoughts on this?

Completely off-topic, but aren't you the guy from that awesome If The World cover?

[SoulMonster]

As a fan of Axl Rose, I would be more than happy if he chose to release music more than once every 15 years.

Axl releasing music every 3-4 years would shut up a huge portion of the negative group.

Actually, his average release rate is more like a record every 4-5 years. And if we exclude the years when the band was practically dead, which you insist on counting, then it drops further. We shouldn't expect a new album every 5th year, though, because older bands tend to release less frequently. So lets say every 6-8 years. That would be 2014-2016 for the next one.

How do you figure every 4-5 years?

He started the ball rolling in 1999 or 2000.

Why are you limiting his production in GN'R to only those year. Surely he started Guns N' Roses in 1985. I didn't read rest of your post.

This post, and you're "GNR releases an album every 4-5 years" post are just so bad. Trolling, or willful blind idiocy, at it's worst.

How is it trolling or idiocy to correct a post that said that Axl releases music every 15 years? I understand that it is convenient for some to only look at the last occasion when he released music, and count backwards and stop right before coming to the earlier release, but that is simply not correct. If the premise was how long time went between TSI and CD, then yes, 15 years (or so) would be correct. But extrapolating from one datapoint is just unreasonable when we are afforded with data going all the way back to 1985 and are hence able to actually give an accurate estimate of the average time between GN'R releases.

How do you figure every 4-5 years?

He started the ball rolling in 1999 or 2000. There was public talk of an album in 2001.....all the way through 2006......before finally in 2008. It is now 2012 with no news of an album in the future. That is 12-13 years that Axl has been touring (not every year, obviously) and he has released one album. I'm not being sarcastic or trying to fight here, but how in the world do you whittle that down to an album ever 4-5 years?

In a strictly technical sense from 1987 we've had Appetite, Lies, Illusion 1&2, Spaghetti Incident and CD so taking an average it is one album every 5 years however to state that without clarifying the details would be disingenuous to the extreme.

We were talking about how often Axl releases music. I don't think it is weird to then actually look at his total production and do the math. If the premise was how often he has released music in the conveniently chosen last 15 years, then THAT premise should have been stated by Groghan.

[Dazey]

We were talking about how often Axl releases music. I don't think it is weird to then actually look at his total production and do the math. If the premise was how often he has released music in the conveniently chosen last 15 years, then THAT premise should have been stated by Groghan.

In fairness you're taking an extremely pedantic standpoint here. You know as well as I do what Groghan was referring to.

[SoulMonster]

We were talking about how often Axl releases music. I don't think it is weird to then actually look at his total production and do the math. If the premise was how often he has released music in the conveniently chosen last 15 years, then THAT premise should have been stated by Groghan.

In fairness you're taking an extremely pedantic standpoint here. You know as well as I do what Groghan was referring to.

Groghan was referring to how frequently Axl releases music ("I would be more than happy if he chose to release music more than once every 15 years."). I knew he willingly decided to disregard years prior to the period of low productivity so as to misrepresent reality and end up with a ridiculously erroneous number, and this was my way of making a point out of it. If he had claimed that GN'R has only released one album, Chinese Democracy, I would also point out that he has forgotten about the period '87-98' *shrug*. I don't even think this is pedantic, after all, it should be expected of GN'R fans to know the most trivial of GN'R lore, like how many albums have been released and when the band was founded.

[RocketQueenGNR]

Hardcore fans will always complain as they want obscure songs played and would be happy with shows where none of the hits are played..but the majority of the fans who attend concerts IMHO are casual fans who want to hear the hits..............It will never change as it is the nature of the beast

I'm glad that I, as a hardcore fan, like what I get. Whether it's old or new songs

[Apollo]

We were talking about how often Axl releases music. I don't think it is weird to then actually look at his total production and do the math. If the premise was how often he has released music in the conveniently chosen last 15 years, then THAT premise should have been stated by Groghan.

In fairness you're taking an extremely pedantic standpoint here. You know as well as I do what Groghan was referring to.

Groghan was referring to how frequently Axl releases music ("I would be more than happy if he chose to release music more than once every 15 years."). I knew he willingly decided to disregard years prior to the period of low productivity so as to misrepresent reality and end up with a ridiculously erroneous number, and this was my way of making a point out of it. If he had claimed that GN'R has only released one album, Chinese Democracy, I would also point out that he has forgotten about the period '87-98' *shrug*. I don't even think this is pedantic, after all, it should be expected of GN'R fans to know the most trivial of GN'R lore, like how many albums have been released and when the band was founded.

I will say that I do admire your ability to always find some weird loophole whenever people try and engage you in a discussion about Axl. Very MLS of you. You take some weird fine point of an overall discussion and just go off on it, completely ignoring the real meat of the subject.

You assumptions are wrong, though.

I was in NO WAY trying to misrepresent reality to make a point. That did make me actually laugh out loud though, as that is pretty much your MO on here. You are doing it now in this discussion.

We were talking about Axl and his bands post the classic line-up.

YOU brought up the musical output of major bands in TODAY'S era.

Logically, 99% of the people involved in this discussion would assume we were talking about the post-classic line-up.

So - and this really is just for you, as every other person who has been reading this discussion understood it - post-classic line-up, when Axl was restarting the name GnR. When Axl started putting the band back together, when he started writing new songs, when he started touring again. Since 2000. In the past 12 years. Is that better?

Now back to the actual real point of the subject.

You said major bands only put out albums every 5-6 years.

I picked 4 major bands that were around in the late 80s and that are still putting out music today.

I then compared their output to GnR's output since 2000.

I thought they would be pretty similar, after reading your comments about how GnR's lack of musical output is pretty similiar to all other major bands.

Bon Jovi, Metallica, Def Leppard and AC/DC.

I posted the results.

Those bands put out albums every few years, EPs every few years, box sets, DVDs, etc.

GnR has put out 1 album and 1 greatest hits album in the last 12 years.

So are you willing to admit that your statement was 100% incorrect? (Please, just one time, can you post a real answer to a question? And not come in with "Well, Led Zepp hasn't released any albums in the past 12 years, so I would gladly take Axl's one album over the legendary Led Zepp" type answers.)

[spunko12345]

As a fan of Axl Rose, I would be more than happy if he chose to release music more than once every 15 years.

Axl releasing music every 3-4 years would shut up a huge portion of the negative group.

Actually, his average release rate is more like a record every 4-5 years. And if we exclude the years when the band was practically dead, which you insist on counting, then it drops further. We shouldn't expect a new album every 5th year, though, because older bands tend to release less frequently. So lets say every 6-8 years. That would be 2014-2016 for the next one.

How do you figure every 4-5 years?

He started the ball rolling in 1999 or 2000. There was public talk of an album in 2001.....all the way through 2006......before finally in 2008. It is now 2012 with no news of an album in the future. That is 12-13 years that Axl has been touring (not every year, obviously) and he has released one album. I'm not being sarcastic or trying to fight here, but how in the world do you whittle that down to an album ever 4-5 years?

I respectfully dissagree with your main point as well.

I did a little research, took about 5 minutes. Just thought of a few bands that were popular in the 80s that are still putting out music today, and that are in the same success ball field as GnR.

Four came to mind. Here is what I discovered just by checking their wiki page. Since 2000. When I say “DVD” that encompasses live albums, documentaries or music video collections. I could be an album or dvd off as I wasn't preparing evidence for a trial. I just jotted some notes down on paper. Again - this is just since 2000.

Metallica

3 albums

1 live album

5 EPS

2 box sets

3 DVDs

13 singles

6 music videos

Bon Jovi

5 albums

1 live album

1 acoustic album

1 greatest hits

1 box set

4 EPs

4 DVDs

21 music videos

25 singles

Def Leppard

3 albums (one in 1999)

2 greatest hits albums

1 live album

1 cover album

4 DVDs

10 singles

5 music videos

AC/DC

2 albums

1 box set

5 DVDs

8 singles

6 music videos

The lowest one is AC/DC and they still overwhelm GnR's output.

1 album

1 greatest hits album

0 dvd

0 box set

3 singles

0 music videos

I will admit that I probably like Axl's music a little too much. I guess you could even say that I like him more than you do, or the normal Nutters do.

He has been my favorite singer since 1988 and I still listen to GnR at least every other day now.

You've said numerous times on here that you would love new music, but you don't dwell on the fact that Axl rarely releases music anymore. Live your life, check out new bands, and all that. I do! But no other band has touched me the way GnR has.

I get your point. I've got a wife, kids, lots of hobbies. Heck, probably will take the boat to the cabin this weekend and hopefully catch a bunch of halibut and shrimp. BUT in terms of my musical entertainment- Axl occupies the top 10 spots, then other bands come to play.

It makes me sad as a fan that Axl has released 15 songs in the past 15 years, while I see other well known bands releasing 100-125 songs in that same time period. Imagining having an extra 100 GnR songs on my IPOD is like imagining winning a hundred grand in the lotto.

So call me a Nutter or a bitter ex-fan or whatever you want.

Axl is my favorite singer, I love GnR music more than any other band's music, and I wish that he had put out more music over the last 15 years. If that makes me a bad fan in your boook, then so be it.

"Heck I'll probably take the boat to the cabin this weekend and hopefully catch some halibut and shrimp"

Lol that was so random. Stuck in the middle of the passionate words.

[SoulMonster]

We were talking about Axl and his bands post the classic line-up.

It is easy for you to claim that now, but there was nothing in your post indicating it ("I would be more than happy if he chose to release music more than once every 15 years").

You said major bands only put out albums every 5-6 years.

I picked 4 major bands that were around in the late 80s and that are still putting out music today.

No, you daft twit, I said "older bands tend to release less frequently [5-8 years]". You can't disprove that tendency by finding a few contradictory examples. You would have to disprove the tendency by showing that the majority of old bands release more frequent than 5-8 years. Good luck with that!

And before you start complaining about me only responding to parts of your post: The rest was so boring I just skimmed it. My time is precious and I focus on your most ridiculous claims.

Edited August 17, 2012 by SoulMonster

[Rustycage]

We were talking about Axl and his bands post the classic line-up.

It is easy for you to claim that now, but there was nothing in your post indicating it ("I would be more than happy if he chose to release music more than once every 15 years").

You said major bands only put out albums every 5-6 years.

I picked 4 major bands that were around in the late 80s and that are still putting out music today.

No, you daft twit, I said "older bands tend to release less frequently [5-8 years]". You can't disprove that tendency by finding a few contradictory examples. You would have to disprove the tendency by showing that the majority of old bands release more frequent than 5-8 years. Good luck with that!

And before you start complaining about me only responding to parts of your post: The rest was so boring I just skimmed it. My time is precious and I focus on your most ridiculous claims.

To be honest, it is your job to prove the tendency with more than a few examples. You claim it, you prove it. Not the other way around.

[SoulMonster]

We were talking about Axl and his bands post the classic line-up.

It is easy for you to claim that now, but there was nothing in your post indicating it ("I would be more than happy if he chose to release music more than once every 15 years").

You said major bands only put out albums every 5-6 years.

I picked 4 major bands that were around in the late 80s and that are still putting out music today.

No, you daft twit, I said "older bands tend to release less frequently [5-8 years]". You can't disprove that tendency by finding a few contradictory examples. You would have to disprove the tendency by showing that the majority of old bands release more frequent than 5-8 years. Good luck with that!

And before you start complaining about me only responding to parts of your post: The rest was so boring I just skimmed it. My time is precious and I focus on your most ridiculous claims.

To be honest, it is your job to prove the tendency with more than a few examples. You claim it, you prove it. Not the other way around.

I haven't said Groghan needed to disprove me, I just ridiculed his attempt. And as for me proving the statement that most older bands release music less frequently: I can't be bothered to prove something that is obvious to anyone with a little knowledge about music. Besides, proving a tendency would require more than "a few examples", it would require proving the direction of the majority.

Edited August 17, 2012 by SoulMonster

[Rustycage]

We were talking about Axl and his bands post the classic line-up.

It is easy for you to claim that now, but there was nothing in your post indicating it ("I would be more than happy if he chose to release music more than once every 15 years").

You said major bands only put out albums every 5-6 years.

I picked 4 major bands that were around in the late 80s and that are still putting out music today.

No, you daft twit, I said "older bands tend to release less frequently [5-8 years]". You can't disprove that tendency by finding a few contradictory examples. You would have to disprove the tendency by showing that the majority of old bands release more frequent than 5-8 years. Good luck with that!

And before you start complaining about me only responding to parts of your post: The rest was so boring I just skimmed it. My time is precious and I focus on your most ridiculous claims.

To be honest, it is your job to prove the tendency with more than a few examples. You claim it, you prove it. Not the other way around.

I can't be bothered to prove something that is obvious to anyone with a little knowledge about music.

No, I can probably name just as many "old bands" that release every couple of years as you can that release every 5-8. There is no "obvious" trend when speaking in broad terms of MUSIC. Unless you can prove that there are more old bands with bigger gaps between albums, you shouldn't be asking anyone to disprove it. You claim it, you prove it. Otherwise, you are expecting people to just conform to your opinion because you THINK it is obvious. You're using your opinion to support your opinion, bro.

Besides, proving a tendency would require more than "a few examples", it would require proving the direction of the majority.

That's exactly what I said before.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Rustycage

[Apollo]

We were talking about Axl and his bands post the classic line-up.

It is easy for you to claim that now, but there was nothing in your post indicating it ("I would be more than happy if he chose to release music more than once every 15 years").

You said major bands only put out albums every 5-6 years.

I picked 4 major bands that were around in the late 80s and that are still putting out music today.

No, you daft twit, I said "older bands tend to release less frequently [5-8 years]". You can't disprove that tendency by finding a few contradictory examples. You would have to disprove the tendency by showing that the majority of old bands release more frequent than 5-8 years. Good luck with that!

And before you start complaining about me only responding to parts of your post: The rest was so boring I just skimmed it. My time is precious and I focus on your most ridiculous claims.

Sigh.

Always with the insults instead of discussing the topic. Always focusing on weird side issues instead of the actual point.

At the end of the day Axl has released one album in the 12 years he has been trying to bury the classic band. With no new album in sight. As a fan, you think that is ok. As a die-hard fan, it makes me sad. To each his own I guess.

******

Spunko I just threw that in as people have a tendency to say "go live your life" when you say that you wished Axl put out music more often. I'm actually taking my parents out this weekend, so that will be fun.

********

Rusty, don't put too much effort into talking with Soul. He will pick some some weird piece of your point and demand evidence and a 3 page essay with documented sources. He isn't here to chat about GnR, but rather to insult those that don't worship Lord Axl. Even if he agreed with you he would still find something to insult the person about.

The four bands that came to mind......from the 80s that are still actual......bj, metallica, acdc and def lepp were the four that came to mind. Souls wants the top 75 bands from 1988, then spend ten hours graphing their careers to come up with a final comparison that would stand up in court.

I guess u could had van halen to the list, though they have their own weird issues. Just off the top of your head, what other rock bands of GnR status from the 80s are still putting out albums today?

I came up with four and they are putting out music almost every year or every other year. Completely proving Soul wrong.

But what can you do. Whenever you prove the cupcakes wrong they just resort to insults and they skip the actual points. Funny stuff.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Groghan

[SoulMonster]

I can't be bothered to prove something that is obvious to anyone with a little knowledge about music.

No, I can probably name just as many "old bands" that release every couple of years as you can that release every 5-8. There is no "obvious" trend when speaking in broad terms of MUSIC. Unless you can prove that there are more old bands with bigger gaps between albums, you shouldn't be asking anyone to disprove it. You claim it, you prove it. Otherwise, you are expecting people to just conform to your opinion because you THINK it is obvious. You're using your opinion to support your opinion, bro.

I was going to just say, "Then I know more about music than you," but it was a little too arrogant, even for me, so let's try this out.

I went to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_in_music#Albums_released for finding bands that released music in 1987 (when GN'R released AFD) to find bands that are old. I couldn't bother to look at each of all these bands, and just went with the first 20 bands from the top of the list so as to get a random selection. I excluding solo artists, bands that are no longer active, or bands that disbanded and regrouped (because that would make it harder to compute the release frequencies). This set of bands should be a representative selection of old bands, sufficient to proving the trend that old bands release less frequent than new bands.

To see how productive they were as a new band vs as an old band, I just averaged their release frequency in their first half of existence and in their second half of existence, and the numbers are shown here (average release frequency in first half/average release frequency in second half):

Deep Purple (12/6)

For Against (5/3)

Public Enemy (8/6)

The Mission (7/2)

Atlantic Starr (10/2)

...

And at this point I couldn't bother anymore since the numbers are so clearly indicating a strong trend: old bands tend to release less frequently than young bands. Not one of the 5 first bands released more frequent as an old band than as a new band. So far this is not only a trend, it is a law .

Always with the insults instead of discussing the topic. Always focusing on weird side issues instead of the actual point.

I don't think it is weird to correct you when you claim that Axl's productivity is one album every 15 years. You were the one that made that weird claim, not me. And I don't think it is weird to correct you when you later claimed I was talking about "major bands" and not "old bands". You are the one making weird claims, either about GN'R or about me, I am merely correcting them.

Edited August 18, 2012 by SoulMonster

[blake-a-mania]

Part of being the "Hardcore Fanbase" is never being happy, take Star Wars as an example, hating the new star wars films and animations it is almost accepted that you are a bigger Star Wars fan if you hate the new stuff the rereleases and George Lucas in general

[Rafał]

We were talking about how often Axl releases music. I don't think it is weird to then actually look at his total production and do the math. If the premise was how often he has released music in the conveniently chosen last 15 years, then THAT premise should have been stated by Groghan.

In fairness you're taking an extremely pedantic standpoint here. You know as well as I do what Groghan was referring to.

Groghan was referring to how frequently Axl releases music ("I would be more than happy if he chose to release music more than once every 15 years."). I knew he willingly decided to disregard years prior to the period of low productivity so as to misrepresent reality and end up with a ridiculously erroneous number, and this was my way of making a point out of it. If he had claimed that GN'R has only released one album, Chinese Democracy, I would also point out that he has forgotten about the period '87-98' *shrug*. I don't even think this is pedantic, after all, it should be expected of GN'R fans to know the most trivial of GN'R lore, like how many albums have been released and when the band was founded.

I will say that I do admire your ability to always find some weird loophole whenever people try and engage you in a discussion about Axl. Very MLS of you. You take some weird fine point of an overall discussion and just go off on it, completely ignoring the real meat of the subject.

You assumptions are wrong, though.

I was in NO WAY trying to misrepresent reality to make a point. That did make me actually laugh out loud though, as that is pretty much your MO on here. You are doing it now in this discussion.

We were talking about Axl and his bands post the classic line-up.

YOU brought up the musical output of major bands in TODAY'S era.

Logically, 99% of the people involved in this discussion would assume we were talking about the post-classic line-up.

So - and this really is just for you, as every other person who has been reading this discussion understood it - post-classic line-up, when Axl was restarting the name GnR. When Axl started putting the band back together, when he started writing new songs, when he started touring again. Since 2000. In the past 12 years. Is that better?

Now back to the actual real point of the subject.

You said major bands only put out albums every 5-6 years.

I picked 4 major bands that were around in the late 80s and that are still putting out music today.

I then compared their output to GnR's output since 2000.

I thought they would be pretty similar, after reading your comments about how GnR's lack of musical output is pretty similiar to all other major bands.

Bon Jovi, Metallica, Def Leppard and AC/DC.

I posted the results.

Those bands put out albums every few years, EPs every few years, box sets, DVDs, etc.

GnR has put out 1 album and 1 greatest hits album in the last 12 years.

So are you willing to admit that your statement was 100% incorrect? (Please, just one time, can you post a real answer to a question? And not come in with "Well, Led Zepp hasn't released any albums in the past 12 years, so I would gladly take Axl's one album over the legendary Led Zepp" type answers.)

I like how you changed the beginning of new GN'R from '99 to 2000 because they released Live Era in '99.

[Rustycage]

I can't be bothered to prove something that is obvious to anyone with a little knowledge about music.

No, I can probably name just as many "old bands" that release every couple of years as you can that release every 5-8. There is no "obvious" trend when speaking in broad terms of MUSIC. Unless you can prove that there are more old bands with bigger gaps between albums, you shouldn't be asking anyone to disprove it. You claim it, you prove it. Otherwise, you are expecting people to just conform to your opinion because you THINK it is obvious. You're using your opinion to support your opinion, bro.

I was going to just say, "Then I know more about music than you," but it was a little too arrogant, even for me, so let's try this out.

I went to http://en.wikipedia....Albums_released for finding bands that released music in 1987 (when GN'R released AFD) to find bands that are old. I couldn't bother to look at each of all these bands, and just went with the first 20 bands from the top of the list so as to get a random selection. I excluding solo artists, bands that are no longer active, or bands that disbanded and regrouped (because that would make it harder to compute the release frequencies). This set of bands should be a representative selection of old bands, sufficient to proving the trend that old bands release less frequent than new bands.

To see how productive they were as a new band vs as an old band, I just averaged their release frequency in their first half of existence and in their second half of existence, and the numbers are shown here (average release frequency in first half/average release frequency in second half):

Deep Purple (12/6)

For Against (5/3)

Public Enemy (8/6)

The Mission (7/2)

Atlantic Starr (10/2)

...

And at this point I couldn't bother anymore since the numbers are so clearly indicating a strong trend: old bands tend to release less frequently than young bands. Not one of the 5 first bands released more frequent as an old band than as a new band. So far this is not only a trend, it is a law .

Always with the insults instead of discussing the topic. Always focusing on weird side issues instead of the actual point.

I don't think it is weird to correct you when you claim that Axl's productivity is one album every 15 years. You were the one that made that weird claim, not me. And I don't think it is weird to correct you when you later claimed I was talking about "major bands" and not "old bands". You are the one making weird claims, either about GN'R or about me, I am merely correcting them.

So you are using a few bands as a trend? Hypocritical. And no, you don't know more music. All you know is mainstream old bands.

[SoulMonster]

So you are using a few bands as a trend? Hypocritical. And no, you don't know more music. All you know is mainstream old bands.

I am sorry this wasn't clear enough for you: I picked all the bands that released a record in 1987 and which are still active. The bands were listed after when they released their album in 1987, hence completely random in regards to our purpose. I then started going through each band but after seeing the trend so strongly after only going through 5 bands, and knowing a bit about statistics -- the probability is very low that looking at more bands would now alter the trend -- I saw no reason to continue. Do you really want me to go through the next 5 bands? Are you addicted to being proven wrong? Are you a discussion masochist?

I might not know more music than you (how would any of us know?) but I certainly know more about the frequency of which bands release music as they get older...

Edited August 18, 2012 by SoulMonster

[Rustycage]

So you are using a few bands as a trend? Hypocritical. And no, you don't know more music. All you know is mainstream old bands.

I am sorry this wasn't clear enough for you: I picked all the bands that released a record in 1987 and which are still active.

That has to be the lamest criteria you could use.

So older bands that have been around longer and release every couple of years don't count because they didn't release a record in the mysterious and cosmic year of 1987?

[Cosmo]

I'd be pleased with the announcement of a new album and a possible release of a live album/dvd before that.

[SoulMonster]

So you are using a few bands as a trend? Hypocritical. And no, you don't know more music. All you know is mainstream old bands.

I am sorry this wasn't clear enough for you: I picked all the bands that released a record in 1987 and which are still active.

That has to be the lamest criteria you could use.

So older bands that have been around longer and release every couple of years don't count because they didn't release a record in the mysterious and cosmic year of 1987?

Err, we were speaking of bands as old as GN'R, then it is only logical to pick bands that released an album the same year as AFD to be sure they are at least that old. Older bands count, of course, I never said they debuted in 1987. I could easily have picked bands that released an album in earlier years. Do you honestly think the numbers would change if I chose 1986 instead? And older bands that release every couple of years count as well, they are just very rare and hence won't change the trend. They would be what we call statistical outliers. This really is too complicated for you.

Edited August 18, 2012 by SoulMonster

[Rustycage]

So you are using a few bands as a trend? Hypocritical. And no, you don't know more music. All you know is mainstream old bands.

I am sorry this wasn't clear enough for you: I picked all the bands that released a record in 1987 and which are still active.

That has to be the lamest criteria you could use.

So older bands that have been around longer and release every couple of years don't count because they didn't release a record in the mysterious and cosmic year of 1987?

Err, we were speaking of bands as old as GN'R, then it is only logical to pick bands that released an album the same year as AFD to be sure they are at least that old. Older bands count, of course, I never said they debuted in 1987. I could easily have picked bands that released an album in earlier years. Do you honestly think the numbers would change if I chose 1986 instead? And older bands that release every couple of years count as well, they are just very rare and hence won't change the trend. They would be what we call statistical outliers. This really is too complicated for you.

You haven't shown a trend. You can't operate on some assumption as fact. Again, you claim it, you prove it. And since you don't want anyone countering with a few examples, follow your own rules and show the trend with more than a few examples.

You took the lazy way out and only used 1987. With the massive amount of bands out there and so many that have been afloat longer than GNR, to pick one year(using only a few examples) is hypocritical. Show the trend or stop trying to spout off assumptions and opinions as facts. I know you like to pride yourself on having intelligent discussion so step your game up.

[SoulMonster]

So you are using a few bands as a trend? Hypocritical. And no, you don't know more music. All you know is mainstream old bands.

I am sorry this wasn't clear enough for you: I picked all the bands that released a record in 1987 and which are still active.

That has to be the lamest criteria you could use.

So older bands that have been around longer and release every couple of years don't count because they didn't release a record in the mysterious and cosmic year of 1987?

Err, we were speaking of bands as old as GN'R, then it is only logical to pick bands that released an album the same year as AFD to be sure they are at least that old. Older bands count, of course, I never said they debuted in 1987. I could easily have picked bands that released an album in earlier years. Do you honestly think the numbers would change if I chose 1986 instead? And older bands that release every couple of years count as well, they are just very rare and hence won't change the trend. They would be what we call statistical outliers. This really is too complicated for you.

You haven't shown a trend. You can't operate on some assumption as fact. Again, you claim it, you prove it. And since you don't want anyone countering with a few examples, follow your own rules and show the trend with more than a few examples.

You took the lazy way out and only used 1987. With the massive amount of bands out there and so many that have been afloat longer than GNR, to pick one year(using only a few examples) is hypocritical. Show the trend or stop trying to spout off assumptions and opinions as facts. I know you like to pride yourself on having intelligent discussion so step your game up.

Have you ever come across the term "representative sample" and never understood what it means? Yes, I thought as much. I have picked 5 random bands that are as old as GN'R and shown that every one of them had a much higher productivity when they were new bands than when they were old bands. When 5 out of 5 show such a clear tendency simple statistics tells us that the probability is very high that the trend will not be greatly affected when the sample is expanded to include every old band that exists, because the probability of randomly selecting 5 bands that all display a trait that is uncommon in the whole set is very low.

So for the sake of the statistics lecture, here are the next five bands on the list:

Manowar (8/4)

REO Speedwagon (14/2)

Dead or Alive (6/1)

The Pastels (7/1)

U2 (8/4).

Again, all five of them released a lot more frequently when they were young than when they were old. Now we have 10 out of 10. And please take a close look at the numbers: ALL of them released twice as frequently when they were young than now, and some up to 7 times as frequent. This is not just proving a trend, this is stumbling upon a law. Feel proud, your own stubborn ignorance has helped to reveal a law.

Edited August 18, 2012 by SoulMonster

[Rustycage]

If there were 19 bands as old as GNR, you would have proven a trend with 10 bands. You're still being lazy.