Can the hardcore fan ever be pleased?

[SoulMonster]

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

If you knew probability theory you would know it isn't necessary to determine the properties of half of a set to prove a trend. In many cases a smaller sample will do. Which is the theoretical foundation for all surveys where a small sample is used to learn something about a greater whole. It isn't a question about being lazy or not, it is a question of finding a clever way to tell something about a large set that can't be studied easily on its own. And if you think there are only 19 bands as old as GN'R, then I believe we have strong evidence for answering the question of who of us knows more about music.

Do you now agree that old bands release music less frequently than new bands? Now is your time to get out of this with at least some respect intact.

Edited August 18, 2012 by SoulMonster

[Rustycage]

No, I don't agree. I don't use a small sample size and then discredit others for doing the same. You do. You are running around in circles and it's amusing.

When you have many bands like:

The Meteors that have been together since 1980, have 26 albums in 32 years(41 if you count live albums). 9 albums in the last 10 years

KMFDM who have 17 studio albums in 28 years. 6 albums in the last 10.

Agnostic Front who have an average of less than 3 years between albums since 1984. 6 Albums in the last 10 years.

Anti-Nowhere League(since 1980) that actually release more often now than when they were fresh

Bad Religion that don't take longer than 2 years to release EVER(including recently)

The Melvins who have NEVER gone longer than 2 years between albums since your 1987(including recently)

Ministry who have been around longer and actually releasing MORE OFTEN later in their career

Overkill who have 5 albums in the last 10 years and pretty much 2 years between.

Venom who have not had more than 3 years between their last 3 albums.

Oi Polloi who take no longer than 2 years recently.

I easily matched your 10. I think you are subscribing to some limited and mainstream "law" or "trend."

Edited August 18, 2012 by Rustycage

[Dumbledore]

No.

[Rustycage]

Oh, and just to clarify, if your criteria here is using ONLY the 4 years since CD as the guide, I tried to keep it to 3 years. That is more than acceptable time to please hardcore fans. If you want to concede that there is most likely no album from GNR this year. I can provide you with MANY more examples of bands with less resources that can produce an album in less than 5 years.

Edited August 18, 2012 by Rustycage

[SoulMonster]

No, I don't agree. I don't use a small sample size and then discredit others for doing the same. You do. You are running around in circles and it's amusing.

I have never discredited others for using a too small sample size. I have discredited others for using a non-random sample, which I believe you just did, too. And even with your biased list most of them adhere to the law of older bands releasing less frequent than young bands, just look at the numbers:

The Meteors (17/9)

KMFDM (10/6)

Agnostic Front (5/5)

Bad Religion (9/7)

The Melvins (9/10)

Ministry (6/6)

Overkill (9/7)

Venom (10/5)

Oi Polloi (9/7)

Two of these bands seem to have maintained their frequency (Agnostic Front and Ministry), whereas all the other bands have started to release less frequently, in accordance with the Law of Rusty (old, rusty bands releasing more rarely). The only exception is Anti-nowhere League who, quite correct, seems to have picked up the frequency, but this band was excluded since they were disbanded for quite some time (remember I exclud all bands that have gone through disbanding and reforming out of mathematical reasons). In other words, we now have 19 bands, 10 of which were completely random and 9 of your choice, and we still have 90 % of them releasing less frequently as an old band, whereas 10 % release with the same frequency. That is a very strong trend.

Are you now going to admit being wrong? Or are you really addicted to being owned?

[Guest Sleeping Like An Angel]

No one can ever be pleased ever. We're all too damn fussy!

[Rustycage]

You have no taken the argument to total stupidity.

Everyone knows your whole premise here is to defend time between CD and whatever this next piece will be.

Also, are you trying to argue that a 3 year gap(today) is so much more significant than 2 years(during their prime)? If so, you are completely losing horribly here.

Want some more that are older than GNR and can release faster to satisfy fans?

Sonic Youth

Iron Maiden

RHCP have kept the same pace since '91

Gwar

Bruce Springsteen

Public Enemy

George Thorogood

Cyndi Lauper(LOL)

Megadeth is still following their 3 year "trend."

Sick of it all

Oh, let me guess? "durp they release every 3 years now instead of 2 and 3 from 20-30 years ago." You are like a chameleon. You morph your argument so you never have to admit you were full of shit.

There is no "TREND" to older bands having larger gaps. There is a trend for struggling bands but that isn't your premise. There is also a factor of bands needing to tour more due to piracy. That in no way reflects on whether they are old or struggling. It is strictly pointing to the reality of music today as opposed to 20+ years ago. If you want to claim something to be a law regarding one variable, you better make sure you knoiw what you're talking about when clearly, you do not.

[Rustycage]

More clarification before you morph again, the common denominator between ALL bands that take 3+ years between albums is the state of music, NOT the band's age.GNR on the other hand, take much longer because they CHOOSE to have bigger gaps in studio time. That is a result of their choice, not age.

Edited August 18, 2012 by Rustycage

[SoulMonster]

You have no taken the argument to total stupidity.

I am verifying my claim that "older bands tend to release less frequently". That is my only argument and I have been true to that since this whole discussion started (just check back in the thread). I haven't deviated from it once. And I think I have done well in testing this hypothesis, it turned out to be correct, even to a larger degree than I first assumed. You have done well, too, by stubbornly refusing to understand the obvious, by being consistently wrong, and by motivating me to take the effort to really hammer in how strong the tendency is. I wish I could send you a medal, you have been quite fantastic.

[Rustycage]

Sigh, you have yet to prove that age has anything to do with how frequently albums come out. It's funny that you seriously trying to ignore the difference in technology and popularity of music combined with piracy to make your false claim of age being the determining factor.

Let me clue you into something about today's music that wasn't as necessary 20 years ago......BANDS CAN'T RELEASE AN ALBUM EVERY 2 YEARS AS EASILY ANYMORE BECAUSE NOW THEY HAVE TO TOUR MORE TO SEE THEIR PROFIT. It has ZERO to do with age.

[Todo Poderoso Timão]

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?

only with the old dvds

[finck6]

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?

um nothing is taken out of context. everything is valid. so. my thoughts are when you don't update your fans on the release date of your next record or don't put a single on itunes or don't make a music video or don't perform a new song at MTV VMA or don't appear on david letterman you SUCK

as 4 setlists.......the 2012 guns n roses concert setlist sucks. why? no NEW music

Edited August 19, 2012 by finck6

[SoulMonster]

Sigh, you have yet to prove that age has anything to do with how frequently albums come out. It's funny that you seriously trying to ignore the difference in technology and popularity of music combined with piracy to make your false claim of age being the determining factor.

Let me clue you into something about today's music that wasn't as necessary 20 years ago......BANDS CAN'T RELEASE AN ALBUM EVERY 2 YEARS AS EASILY ANYMORE BECAUSE NOW THEY HAVE TO TOUR MORE TO SEE THEIR PROFIT. It has ZERO to do with age.

So you are rejecting the Law of Rusty because you believe what we have been observing is just a result of current changes in how the industry works, and not because of the bands getting older and hence may not be hungry enough, may have families who stifle their output, may have songwriters who live far away from each other, may be financially secure, and other plausible explanations? Well, that hypothesis of yours is easily tested by computing the output as we have done already for current, old bands, of bands that stopped before 2000 yet lasted for a long time (> 10 years). Fun!

This time I am finding bands using this list: http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/5932-top-100-albums-of-the-1970s/1/ And again I only pick bands (not solo artists) and exclude those with long periods of being temporarily disbanded. The bands should also have been active for a long time (> 15 years) and stopped being active before the year 2000. As before, I divide their activity period into two equally long segments, the first comprising their activity as a "new band", the second as an "old band".

Here are the first 5 bands from the list that fit the criteria:

Pink Floyd (11/3)

Ramones (9/4)

Can (10/2)

XTC (9/4)

The Who (6/4) (up until Townsend left in the 80s)

So you were wrong again, RustyCage. I am not saying that there can't be something to your hypothesis that the industry has changed and that artists release less albums these days, but I have demonstrated that there are other factors at work too which makes The Law Of Rusty universal and timeless. I have already suggested what these factors may be earlier in this post.

In other words, my original statement "old bands tend to release less frequent" stands. As do my numerous statements about you being wrong. It is just time for you to admit it. Man up, dude.

What does this have to do with GN'R? Well, that it is unrealistic to expect GN'R to release as frequently as they did when they were a young band, or as frequently as most active bands today. Old bands just don't do that.

[Rustycage]

It's like arguing with a wall. Grow some balls. Age has nothing to do with how frequently albums are released.

[Gagarin]

^That's a little over statement. NOTHING to do with frequency?

[Rustycage]

^That's a little over statement. NOTHING to do with frequency?

He determines it to be some "law."

It isn't an absolute factor. There isn't even a trend to suggest it is due to age. The music industry is different, the rock genre's popularity is different. Are we to believe that because A LOT of bands release every 3 years instead of 2(like 20 years ago) that it is because they are an older band?

Absolutely not.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Rustycage

[SoulMonster]

It's like arguing with a wall. Grow some balls. Age has nothing to do with how frequently albums are released.

What? Old bands releases less frequently than new bands. Period. I have provided evidence in abundance for this. Ignoring all the evidence just to escape having to admit being wrong only makes you more of a fool. But I guess that is your choice.

Edited August 20, 2012 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

There isn't even a trend to suggest it is due to age.

Where's that facepalm smiley?

The music industry is different, the rock genre's popularity is different.

That might be true, but still more than 90 % of bands from different genres (not just rock) released far less albums as the bands grew older, even bands who stopped being active prior to 2000. So it can't be changes in the rock music industry. Just man up and admit you are wrong.

Are we to believe that because A LOT of bands release every 3 years instead of 2(like 20 years ago) that it is because they are an older band?

Absolutely not.

I haven't talked about causality, I have only talked about correlation. I guess you are not familiar with these terms, look them up. It is a FACT that bands release less frequently as they get older. This has been proven without doubt (unless you are an imbecile). WHY this happens is something else entirely. I believe it is caused by band members not being eager to prove anything, having lost the creative spark, maybe started focusing on other things (family, kids, etc), not being as interested in music, perhaps fed up with the industry, as they get older in the business. But the exact reason, the causal agent, is irrelevant to whether old bands really release less frequently, which has been proven.

Do you have problems accepting evidence even when it is not in conflict with your own silly hypotheses and beliefs?

Edited August 20, 2012 by SoulMonster

[Rustycage]

You have shown NO evidence that it is due to age. There are several other factors that also affect new bands despite your baseless claims...AGAIN.

You are ignoring the different trends of music and the completely different playing field in the music industry. And you claim I am ignoring something? You haven't proved a thing but want to parade around with your flag as if your opinion is fact.

When your band is part of a genre less popular than 20 years ago AND you're in a music industry where your only noticeable profit is touring, even more than before, you aren't going to be pumping out albums every 1-2 years. That's just common sense. It's supply and demand. When you aren't part of a popular genre, you aren't going to be releasing as much as you were when you were popular because the demand isn't the same.

You cannot show that a reason a band releases less is due to age. What CAN be shown is that as they became less popular, the demand for them went down.

I can't believe how dumb you choose to act about this to prove some irrelevant point.

As a band becomes less popular, the demand is lower. FACT

As a band gets older, they somehow can't produce as many albums. OPINION

The correlation isn't has nothing to do with age. It is purely popularity/demand and the loss of profit today from record sales.

[SoulMonster]

You have shown NO evidence that it is due to age. There are several other factors that also affect new bands despite your baseless claims...AGAIN.

You are ignoring the different trends of music and the completely different playing field in the music industry. And you claim I am ignoring something? You haven't proved a thing but want to parade around with your flag as if your opinion is fact.

When your band is part of a genre less popular than 20 years ago AND you're in a music industry where your only noticeable profit is touring, even more than before, you aren't going to be pumping out albums every 1-2 years. That's just common sense. It's supply and demand. When you aren't part of a popular genre, you aren't going to be releasing as much as you were when you were popular because the demand isn't the same.

You cannot show that a reason a band releases less is due to age. What CAN be shown is that as they became less popular, the demand for them went down.

I can't believe how dumb you choose to act about this to prove some irrelevant point.

As a band becomes less popular, the demand is lower. FACT

As a band gets older, they somehow can't produce as many albums. OPINION

The correlation isn't has nothing to do with age. It is purely popularity/demand and the loss of profit today from record sales.

Again, the bands I have chosen comes from various genres, so the observed effect this can't be due to rock being less popular. In addition, I also picked a set of bands who stopped being active before rock became unfashionable or albums became unprofitable, so this can't be due to rock being less popular in recent years or albums sales dropping (this was before downloaded changed the industry). So again, you are wrong on all accounts. Normal people would long ago admitted being wrong or even skulked away silently, why do you insist on continuing to demonstrate both your inability to grasp simple concepts as well as your inability to admit being wrong?

[Rustycage]

There isn't even a trend to suggest it is due to age.

Where's that facepalm smiley?

The music industry is different, the rock genre's popularity is different.

That might be true, but still more than 90 % of bands from different genres (not just rock) released far less albums as the bands grew older, even bands who stopped being active prior to 2000. So it can't be changes in the rock music industry. Just man up and admit you are wrong.

Are we to believe that because A LOT of bands release every 3 years instead of 2(like 20 years ago) that it is because they are an older band?

Absolutely not.

I haven't talked about causality, I have only talked about correlation. I guess you are not familiar with these terms, look them up. It is a FACT that bands release less frequently as they get older. This has been proven without doubt (unless you are an imbecile). WHY this happens is something else entirely. I believe it is caused by band members not being eager to prove anything, having lost the creative spark, maybe started focusing on other things (family, kids, etc), not being as interested in music, perhaps fed up with the industry, as they get older in the business. But the exact reason, the causal agent, is irrelevant to whether old bands really release less frequently, which has been proven.

Do you have problems accepting evidence even when it is not in conflict with your own silly hypotheses and beliefs?

Don't try to condescend. I am officially educated in the terms while you are spouting off bullshit opinions and ignoring obvious facts in the industry today to prove your narrow minded and cherry picking premise to prop up GNR as some poor victim of being an older band. There is always a nostalgic hunger in the music industry and just as any nostalgic market, the demand is lower. The lower demand results in less production. Couple that with a loss of profitability now compared to 20-30 years ago and there is your Economics 101 correlation. Apparently you don't understand economics and how those simple facts should be attributed here.

The production is dictated by demand and profitability NOT how old the band are.

What you totally ignored is that a lot of the bands I showed you have a cult following and while maintaining most of the demand through the years, their production remained on par with the demand. If they had a larger demand in the global market like say, ummmmm, GNR, once the fad changed and their popularity decreased, so would their production. Even with that, none of them take 5 years to release an LP.

Your motive to defend GNR because of age is grasping at straws.

Your claims that age is the contributing factor to lower production is still unproven.

[Rustycage]

You have shown NO evidence that it is due to age. There are several other factors that also affect new bands despite your baseless claims...AGAIN.

You are ignoring the different trends of music and the completely different playing field in the music industry. And you claim I am ignoring something? You haven't proved a thing but want to parade around with your flag as if your opinion is fact.

When your band is part of a genre less popular than 20 years ago AND you're in a music industry where your only noticeable profit is touring, even more than before, you aren't going to be pumping out albums every 1-2 years. That's just common sense. It's supply and demand. When you aren't part of a popular genre, you aren't going to be releasing as much as you were when you were popular because the demand isn't the same.

You cannot show that a reason a band releases less is due to age. What CAN be shown is that as they became less popular, the demand for them went down.

I can't believe how dumb you choose to act about this to prove some irrelevant point.

As a band becomes less popular, the demand is lower. FACT

As a band gets older, they somehow can't produce as many albums. OPINION

The correlation isn't has nothing to do with age. It is purely popularity/demand and the loss of profit today from record sales.

Again, the bands I have chosen comes from various genres, so the observed effect this can't be due to rock being less popular. In addition, I also picked a set of bands who stopped being active before rock became unfashionable or albums became unprofitable, so this can't be due to rock being less popular in recent years or albums sales dropping (this was before downloaded changed the industry). So again, you are wrong on all accounts. Normal people would long ago admitted being wrong or even skulked away silently, why do you insist on continuing to demonstrate both your inability to grasp simple concepts as well as your inability to admit being wrong?

I swear, did you you even go to school? Do you even know that demand dictates production?

As I told you, struggling bands will produce less. Popular but less profitable bands will produce less. Bands that can maintain a consistent level of popularity over their career typically maintain the same level of production. Hardly anyone from 20-30 years ago are as profitable in today's market. THAT is the factor. Not your smoke screen about age.

I think that you need to learn the economic fundamentals that are the factor here instead of trying to impress people with the word, "correlation." I for one am not impressed. Your point is dead.

[SoulMonster]

Just out of boredom I looked on some artists active in the 60s. The criteria for choosing bands are as before.

Bill Haley and his Comets (18/3)

Everly Brothers (17/4)

Four Seasons (17/4)

Uhm, I can't be bother to do more, it is clear this Law applies also to band existing and being active in the heyday of albums.

[Rustycage]

Just out of boredom I looked on some artists active in the 60s. The criteria for choosing bands are as before.

Bill Haley and his Comets (18/3)

Everly Brothers (17/4)

Four Seasons (17/4)

Uhm, I can't be bother to do more, it is clear this Law applies also to band existing and being active in the heyday of albums.

Do you not see that you just conceded?

The correlation is NOT age, it is the markets and popularity.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Rustycage

[SoulMonster]

Don't try to condescend.

Making fun of you really is redundant as long as you keep posting rubbish

I am officially educated in the terms

Hahaha

while you are spouting off bullshit opinions and ignoring obvious facts in the industry today to prove your narrow minded and cherry picking premise to prop up GNR as some poor victim of being an older band. There is always a nostalgic hunger in the music industry and just as any nostalgic market, the demand is lower. The lower demand results in less production. Couple that with a loss of profitability now compared to 20-30 years ago and there is your Economics 101 correlation. Apparently you don't understand economics and how those simple facts should be attributed here.

Heh, if you had paid attention you would have seen that in an early post I also picked bands that were active in the 70s to 90s, which is the period you seem to miss. I guess your mind just blanks out any conflicting information.

The production is dictated by demand and profitability NOT how old the band are.

Again you are mixing up causality and correlation. Fact is that old bands tend to release less frequently, whether it is because they loose their creative juices and hence become worse as musicians and composers, or a myriad of other factors I have already mentioned, is irrelevant. I am not trying to find out the WHYs, just objectively describe reality.

Your claims that age is the contributing factor to lower production is still unproven.

I have NEVER claimed age is the reason. I have only proved that "old bands tend to release less frequent than new bands". The reasons are irrelevant. Is this really too hard for you to grasp? I am sure a clever gorilla would have got this by now.

You have shown NO evidence that it is due to age. There are several other factors that also affect new bands despite your baseless claims...AGAIN.

You are ignoring the different trends of music and the completely different playing field in the music industry. And you claim I am ignoring something? You haven't proved a thing but want to parade around with your flag as if your opinion is fact.

When your band is part of a genre less popular than 20 years ago AND you're in a music industry where your only noticeable profit is touring, even more than before, you aren't going to be pumping out albums every 1-2 years. That's just common sense. It's supply and demand. When you aren't part of a popular genre, you aren't going to be releasing as much as you were when you were popular because the demand isn't the same.

You cannot show that a reason a band releases less is due to age. What CAN be shown is that as they became less popular, the demand for them went down.

I can't believe how dumb you choose to act about this to prove some irrelevant point.

As a band becomes less popular, the demand is lower. FACT

As a band gets older, they somehow can't produce as many albums. OPINION

The correlation isn't has nothing to do with age. It is purely popularity/demand and the loss of profit today from record sales.

Again, the bands I have chosen comes from various genres, so the observed effect this can't be due to rock being less popular. In addition, I also picked a set of bands who stopped being active before rock became unfashionable or albums became unprofitable, so this can't be due to rock being less popular in recent years or albums sales dropping (this was before downloaded changed the industry). So again, you are wrong on all accounts. Normal people would long ago admitted being wrong or even skulked away silently, why do you insist on continuing to demonstrate both your inability to grasp simple concepts as well as your inability to admit being wrong?

I swear, did you you even go to school? Do you even know that demand dictates production?

As I told you, struggling bands will produce less. Popular but less profitable bands will produce less. Bands that can maintain a consistent level of popularity over their career typically maintain the same level of production. Hardly anyone from 20-30 years ago are as profitable in today's market. THAT is the factor. Not your smoke screen about age.

I think that you need to learn the economic fundamentals that are the factor here instead of trying to impress people with the word, "correlation." I for one am not impressed. Your point is dead.

You are still trying to explain why bands who have been active a long time (=old bands) release less frequently than bands that are new. I don't care about the reasons, I just wanted to prove you wrong when you claimed they don't.