Color Me Obsessed: A Film About the Replacements

[Redhead74]

If Stinson had any self-respect, if he was a proper 'punk rocker', a proper rebel with integrity, he would have kicked Axl Rose in the bollocks ten years' ago and told him his band 'f''in stinks'. Instead, ten years on, he is playing Rose's hits in front of a bunch of gambling addicts who probably cannot name a single GN'R song if they tried. ''Stinsons is cool, he earned his chops, he is punk rock' - I agree - but why is he playing with Axl? It is a blot on his career.

Give it up sweetheart, you ain't gonna win this one.

[DieselDaisy]

If Stinson had any self-respect, if he was a proper 'punk rocker', a proper rebel with integrity, he would have kicked Axl Rose in the bollocks ten years' ago and told him his band 'f''in stinks'. Instead, ten years on, he is playing Rose's hits in front of a bunch of gambling addicts who probably cannot name a single GN'R song if they tried. ''Stinsons is cool, he earned his chops, he is punk rock' - I agree - but why is he playing with Axl? It is a blot on his career.

Apparently you missed it so i'm gonna run it by you again, what has punk got to do with anything?

Wasn't the Replacements a punk rock band? Punk is a mindset, it represents integrity. Stinson playing September Rain before a bunch of half addled gambling addicts is the antithesis of what the Replacements once represented. In actual fact I am praising Stinson here: I acknowledge the integrity of the Replacements. But, Axl, Vegas, the cheesy hits, Ashba?

It is a blot on a career. That is my point.

It is a bit like summarizing Ali's career and ignoring Holmes/Berbick. Unfortunately you have to include Holmes/Berbick as it was Ali's prerogative to fight those particular fights. You cannot create a neat wall, seperating the section of Ali's career that we all respect, from the section of Ali's career was absolute humiliation. Stinson chooses to play Guns's hits in front of housewives in Vegas? It is a blot on a career.

[Johnny Drama]

Your both right. Now stfu

[DieselDaisy]

I am not about to say, 'no mas'.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Wasn't the Replacements a punk rock band?

Not especially, no. They came up off of hardcore but only really made one album and an EP in that sort of vein.

In actual fact I am praising Stinson here: I acknowledge the integrity of the Replacements.

Right well you weren't in the first instance and thats what i was looking for so thank you, thats settled

It is a bit like summarizing Ali's career and ignoring Holmes/Berbick. Unfortunately you have to include Holmes/Berbick as it was Ali's prerogative to fight those particular fights. You cannot create a neat wall, seperating the section of Ali's career that we all respect, from the section of Ali's career was absolute humiliation.

Humiliation? The man stood up in front of Holmes the whole way, took his shot, Angie Dundee stopped that fight because Ali "wasn't firing back", humiliation? Nothing in the world can humiliate Muhammad Ali. That weren't humiliation, Ali was finished, showing early signs of Parkinsons, completely dehydrated and the man never went down, against those odds, that ain't humiliation.

Stinson chooses to play Guns's hits in front of housewives in Vegas? It is a blot on a career.

Hang on a sec, who the fuck fell off the perch and put you in charge of what is or isn't a good audience, what audience is acceptable to your mind? Musicians that make music want their music to be heard, thats the idea of it, they ain't selective about audiences, it's for human beings.

Whats wrong with being a housewife? Does being a housewife mean that you are stricken from the list of people that are allowed to listen to music with integrity?

Why don't you explain to me what constitutes a good audience, in your estimation? And what possible bearing does the audience have to do with the nature of and the intent of an artists performance, in terms of it's integrity, explain this to me please.

Edited September 27, 2012 by sugaraylen

[st0n3r]

Come on, he just meant "housewives" as a figur eof speech.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Come on, he just meant "housewives" as a figur eof speech.

Well alright then, the "half addled" patrons of Casinos that he mentioned previously too, or was that a figure of speech too?

[st0n3r]

Come on, he just meant "housewives" as a figur eof speech.

Well alright then, the "half addled" patrons of Casinos that he mentioned previously too, or was that a figure of speech too?

I don't know what "half addled" means, tbh.

I'm not saying I agree with him, but he meant to say that Stinson now plays vegas shows in a washed up band. The way he said it is just semantics, and not what this discussion is about.

I also think housewives deserve more respect. The fact that so many mothers are forced to go out working because otherwise they are incapable of paying the bills, is a sad evolution of western society. It is also the reason why europeans have less children. They simply can't afford to have more. But that's besides the point.

Edited September 27, 2012 by st0n3r

[Guest Len B'stard]

Come on, he just meant "housewives" as a figur eof speech.

Well alright then, the "half addled" patrons of Casinos that he mentioned previously too, or was that a figure of speech too?

I don't know what "half addled" means, tbh.

I'm not saying I agree with him, but he meant to say that Stinson now plays vegas shows in a washed up band. The way he said it is just semantics, and not what this discussion is about.

I also think housewives deserve more respect. The fact that so many mothers are forced to go out working because otherwise they are incapable of paying the bills, is a sad evolution of western society. It is also the reason why europeans have less children. They simply can't afford to have more. But that's besides the point.

The reason i made the housewife comment is because thats the second time he's mentioned a specific kind of audience as a criticism of Tommy and by extension Guns n Roses i.e. they're playing to *fill in the blank*, first it was addled gamblers (addled means when someone is beset by something btw ) and after that it was housewives, my point was more related to this notion about artists being choosy about what sort of person comes to see their shit, whether by virtue of their occupation or their age or their extra-curricular interests, just sounds ridiculous to me, dictating what is OK in terms of the audience of music, it's just ridiculous, like there is something inherent in the sort of people that patronise casinos that makes them ineligible for listening to music with any kind of integrity, it's just such a ridiculous notion.

[dalsh327]

If Stinson had any self-respect, if he was a proper 'punk rocker', a proper rebel with integrity, he would have kicked Axl Rose in the bollocks ten years' ago and told him his band 'f''in stinks'. Instead, ten years on, he is playing Rose's hits in front of a bunch of gambling addicts who probably cannot name a single GN'R song if they tried. ''Stinsons is cool, he earned his chops, he is punk rock' - I agree - but why is he playing with Axl? It is a blot on his career.

He has a family, he has bills to pay, he's not living out of a van trying to make ends meet. He gets to create art in the Hudson Valley regardless of whether or not it makes money. Living in a van because you're broke in your 40s and 50s pathetic, not "punk rock". EVERYONE in GNR knows someone who has to suck it up backing Hannah Montana or the Village People, or getting by on lessons, if not out of the music biz altogether.

Most of the old school punk guys have sold songs to commercials, headlined festivals, get their money as record label heads, A&R guys, done reality shows, or working on soundtracks. I think it's great for an older band to be out there playing, but not because they have to do it. It's fine if you're in your teens and twenties, but it's a whole other ballgame when they have a family.

Playing music for a living is what it comes down to. There's no Plan B for the vast majority of musicians out there.

http://blogs.laweekly.com/westcoastsound/2011/12/tommy_stinson_interview_guns_n_roses.php?page=2

LAWeekly: What would you say Axl and Paul Westerberg have in common?

Stinson: Jeez, there are a lot of similarities. One is they're both the real deal, both without a doubt the real thing. Axl's the great singer, sold tons of fucking records, and Paul is one of the great writers of the era. They're both somewhat hard to deal with. They have definite ways they see things, and that's the way it's going to be. Not that it's a bad thing -- they both stick to their guns. Maybe sometimes to a fault. It's gotta be hard on both of them to be so immovable at times.

http://www.atlanticcityweekly.com/arts-and-entertainment/features/Interview-Whet-Your-Appetite-guns-n-roses-head-to-atlantic-city-tour-concert-house-of-blues-140029973.html

AC Weekly: Is there a backup for you with Guns N’ Roses?


Stinson: I’m not going to miss anything with Guns since it’s been my main gig for the last 14 years, but if I had to miss, the person I could call is [original Guns N’ Roses bassist] Duff [McKagan]. He would do it and the old fans would get a kick out of it.

AC Weekly: One album in 14 years isn’t much of an output. Any chance that Guns N’ Roses will put out anything since Chinese Democracy finally was released?


Stinson: I really hope so. I would like to put out more than one album in 14 years. But people don’t know how much trouble we had with Interscope [Records]. They didn’t make it easy on us. But there’s a good chance something will be out. We’re writing and Axl really likes some of the stuff [guitarist] DJ [Ashba] has come up with. Guns has a future and I think it includes an album. I’m fine with playing the old Guns songs I had nothing to do with when they were recorded. I’m all about Chinese Democracy, too, but I want new Guns N’ Roses songs.


AC Weekly: What’s Axl Rose really like?


Stinson: First of all, Axl Rose is part of a dying breed, a real rock star. There just aren’t rock stars anymore. He’s a really good guy, great to work with. If that wasn’t so I wouldn’t be working with him for the last 14 years.


http://www.avclub.com/articles/tommy-stinson,59511/

AVC: How did you end up with GN’R?

TS: It was kind of a fluke. A friend of mine, Josh Freese, was playing drums with them, and I asked him what he was up to, and he was like, “Oh, fuck, I can’t really talk about it, but I’ll tell you anyway.” And it turned out he was playing drums, and working on the record. He said, “It’s funny that you’re asking me, because Duff [McKagan] just quit, and we need a bass player.” I was just joking with him: “Oh, that would be a fucking hoot,” given my thoughts about Guns N’ Roses at that time. But I did it anyway just as a laugh, and it turned out pretty good. They didn’t really audition anyone else. They liked me, and because Josh was doing it, it was a compelling notion.

At the time, coincidentally, I was about to get kind of screwed by yet another record label with the Perfect record. I felt like, “You know what? This is enough.” It’s been five years of trying to get this thing going, I keep getting screwed, and I just want a break. So I looked at it as something to do until I figured out my next move. And it worked out pretty good, all things considered.

[MB.]

WTF is wrong with being a housewife

Since I am a 'housewife', I am done? I don't count as 'real' audience anymore!

I am a fan of GNR from the start, but we get older and so many of their fans are 'housewives', same goes for The Replacements or any other older band. Ever been to a Stones concert for example, we are everywhere............... .

Thank you Sugaraylen and st0n3r for defending us 'housewives'.

By the way, I totally love The Replacements, and I am agreeing with Lenny on this one.

I personally love Tommy's solo the most from all the solo's played by newgnr members.

[DieselDaisy]

Humiliation? The man stood up in front of Holmes the whole way, took his shot, Angie Dundee stopped that fight because Ali "wasn't firing back", humiliation? Nothing in the world can humiliate Muhammad Ali. That weren't humiliation, Ali was finished, showing early signs of Parkinsons, completely dehydrated and the man never went down, against those odds, that ain't humiliation.

It shows that Ali had one of the greatest chins in boxing, yes. But Holmes/Berbick is not how we want to remember Muhamamd Ali. They were sad spectacles, fights which shouldn't have happened. Just listen to the commentary on those fights: ''this is sad to see; somebody should stop the fight.''

My housewives comment relates to a certain type of person who would see a fading Elvis Presley in the 70s in Vegas. They usually had really trashy make-up and fake tans.

[Guest Len B'stard]

My housewives comment relates to a certain type of person who would see a fading Elvis Presley in the 70s in Vegas. They usually had really trashy make-up and fake tans.

And thats somehow less elitist and prejudice and shallow, the judging criteria now is make up and degrees of tanning? How about watching those vegas shows and watch how some of those ladies are reacting to it, you telling me that somehow they ain't into music or they ain't "real" fans, some of them are in tears.

Edited September 27, 2012 by sugaraylen

[Redhead74]

My housewives comment relates to a certain type of person who would see a fading Elvis Presley in the 70s in Vegas. They usually had really trashy make-up and fake tans.

It seems the criteria here for gauging if a musician is successful is based on the "coolness" factor. If you're not playing to a young, hip, trendconscious audience anymore, you are relegated a failure. Bloody ridiculous. I think if anything, the fact that a band can still draw an audience 25 years after their conception says more for their success, than their failure.

[DieselDaisy]

My housewives comment relates to a certain type of person who would see a fading Elvis Presley in the 70s in Vegas. They usually had really trashy make-up and fake tans.

And thats somehow less elitist and prejudice and shallow, the judging criteria now is make up and degrees of tanning? How about watching those vegas shows and watch how some of those ladies are reacting to it, you telling me that somehow they ain't into music or they ain't "real" fans, some of them are in tears.

I am sure they enjoyed the show immensely but when your entire crowd consists of perma-tanned 40-or-something women, there is something going drastically wrong in your career. Presley in truth had ceased to be relevant. Contrast what Presley was doing with what Bowie, Zep or even what the Jacksons were doing. Presley should have been competing with these people.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Those birds at those Elvis gigs, right up until he bit the proverbial burger, they were fuckin mental, he'd throw towels at him and you'd hear these screams flaring up from the crowd.

I am sure they enjoyed the show immensely but when your entire crowd consists of perma-tanned 40-or-something women, there is something going drastically wrong in your career.

Why? Elvis was 40 himself at the time, Tommys in his 50s now if i'm not mistaken, whats wrong with playing to people your own age, whats wrong with playing to any people?

Presley in truth had ceased to be relevant.

Relevant to what? Youth culture? He was relevant enough to the hundreds of thousands that saw him still, it's real simple, musicians play music, historians and journalists and bullshit trendies are the people that go on about relevant and no longer relevant, it's music it's not some kind of debate, it's audio, you hear it and you like it and you're a fan, if you got ears, join the club, this seems to be the way it works.

Contrast what Presley was doing with what Bowie, Zep or even what the Jacksons were doing. Presley should have been competing with these people.

Elvis was fine being Elvis and Bowie was fine being Bowie, there's room for all and it's not celebrity squares, artists don't exist at the expense of each other, they each occupy their own singular niche in culture, Elvis has Elvis fans and Bowie has Bowie fans and some people are fans of both, Presley had had his peek and believe me, he had nothing to look towards Bowie and Zep for, in fact if i recall correctly Zep, the oh so relevant ones came around kissing his arse and he hooked them all up with Rolexes in between their bouts of being relevant.

Art is about expression right, not competition, competition is sort of a little cheap and thats what musicians do, they express themselves through playing, from your Elvises to your Tommy Stinsons. But for the sake of argument, if you wanna talk numbers and be competitive and peaks and troughs, did they sell as many records as Elvis? Did they ever get as big as Elvis, ever? Nopes.

Edited September 27, 2012 by sugaraylen

[DieselDaisy]

This debate is getting clouded in semantics. The point is, Stinson is about to play the exact same set list again for the millionth time, of songs written by other guys, in a Vegas residency. Vegas need I remind you is a place synonymous with washed-out acts. This is a blot on Stinson's artistic integrity however much you try and gloss over the fact.

[Guest Len B'stard]

This debate is getting clouded in semantics. The point is, Stinson is about to play the exact same set list again for the millionth time, of songs written by other guys, in a Vegas residency. Vegas need I remind you is a place synonymous with washed-out acts. This is a blot on Stinson's artistic integrity however much you try and gloss over the fact.

Right well the last couple of pages has been us discussing just that and you floundering at an attempt at scraping some semblance of a point together very unsuccessfully and instead succeeding in coming off as very snobby and elitist with a really weird set of priorities in your assessment of notions of integrity and expression.

[Redhead74]

[DieselDaisy]

Really? To me this debate has become preoccupied with a rather facetious throwaway remark concerning the composition of Presley's 1970s audience. It is ignoring the fact that Stinson is a contributor to the madness which is, Nugnr 2012. If Ali had retired after Spinks II he would be 56-3 with all three defeats avenged. As it happens he retired 56-5. Guns N’ Roses is Tommy Stinson's Larry Holmes.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Really? To me this debate has become preoccupied with a rather facetious throwaway remark concerning the composition of Presley's 1970s audience. It is ignoring the fact that Stinson is a contributor to the madness which is, Nugnr 2012.

Or, more accurately, this debate has become preoccupied with the specifics of YOUR description regarding exactly what is wrong, in your estimation, with playing Vegas and Vegas audiences, which is what your argument was hinged around, some ill-concieved notions regarding Vegas being some kind of soulless beacon of commerce and the people therein being somehow fundamentally incapable of being fans of music by virtue of their occupation or their age or how they choose to apply cosmetics. Fundamentally your post was hinged around that and notions of musical authorship and the various analogies you provided to back that up and i was responding specifically to that.

[DieselDaisy]

Really? To me this debate has become preoccupied with a rather facetious throwaway remark concerning the composition of Presley's 1970s audience. It is ignoring the fact that Stinson is a contributor to the madness which is, Nugnr 2012.

Or, more accurately, this debate has become preoccupied with the specifics of YOUR description regarding exactly what is wrong, in your estimation, with playing Vegas and Vegas audiences, which is what your argument was hinged around, some ill-concieved notions regarding Vegas being some kind of soulless beacon of commerce and the people therein being somehow fundamentally incapable of being fans of music by virtue of their occupation or their age or how they choose to apply cosmetics. Fundamentally your post was hinged around that and notions of musical authorship and the various analogies you provided to back that up and i was responding specifically to that.

You are ignoring the point. Vegas however thanks you for this sterling defence. But you are still ignoring the point.

[Guest Len B'stard]

You are ignoring the point. Vegas however thanks you for this sterling defence. But you are still ignoring the point.

No i'm not, there's something wrong with Tommy Stinson for:

First: Playing other peoples songs, totally addressed

Second: doing it in Vegas because there's something fundamentally wrong with Vegas and it's audiences

Anything else?

[DieselDaisy]

You are ignoring the point. Vegas however thanks you for this sterling defence. But you are still ignoring the point.

No i'm not, there's something wrong with Tommy Stinson for:

First: Playing other peoples songs, totally addressed

Second: doing it in Vegas because there's something fundamentally wrong with Vegas and it's audiences

Anything else?

It is not Vegas per se but the 'Vegas Residency'. You seem to know your music/musical history so surely you are aware of the association of 'Vegas Residencies' and 'Wash-Out'. There is an image conjured-up, rightly or wrongly, of a jump-suited Presley playing big-band variants of his greatest hits to, yes, housewives (sorry to use that highly inflammatory word!). Immediately when you say ‘Vegas’, this is the image. (And then Tony Bennett, Andy Williams, Tom Jones, The Osmonds, etc, naturally fall in line).

Vegas Residencies went rock n’ roll with Motley Crue you might say? This doesn't change the word association. And it is a negative association as there is a sense of, the artist being peripheral to the gambling house. And this is in fact the truth of the situation as the Casinos book them and offload cheap tickets onto punters (Consequentially you get a lot of casuals and tourist types). It is inherently a 'nostalgia market'. Now nostalgia can be good in doses but when you go to Vegas you usually have already relinquished your creativity and are there solely for the cash. (In fairness to Presley though, he still occasionally recorded and still produced the odd hit, e.g. Moody Blue.). In Vegas you are there to deliver the hits to casuals like a 'good boy.' Someone like Neil Young wouldn't touch the thing. The whole enterprise is cash-induced and quite, quite far from that ‘rock n’ roll’/punk rock spirit.

Now Stinson, for choosing to accompany Rose and co. buys into the enterprise. The association of, 'Vegas wash-out', will attach itself. Stinson’s contemporaries will naturally wonder why he is playing Guns N’ Roses's greatest-hits in a Vegas Residency. Some of his fans might wonder why he is doing this (though obviously not you). It is a blot on a career.

Just like we cannot remember Presley solely for 1954-8 - as much as we would like to. We have to acknowledge 1969-77 (even though the first year or two in Vegas wasn't that bad).

[Guest Len B'stard]

You are ignoring the point. Vegas however thanks you for this sterling defence. But you are still ignoring the point.

No i'm not, there's something wrong with Tommy Stinson for:

First: Playing other peoples songs, totally addressed

Second: doing it in Vegas because there's something fundamentally wrong with Vegas and it's audiences

Anything else?

It is not Vegas per se but the 'Vegas Residency'. You seem to know your music/musical history so surely you are aware of the association of 'Vegas Residencies' and 'Wash-Out'. There is an image conjured-up, rightly or wrongly, of a jump-suited Presley playing big-band variants of his greatest hits to, yes, housewives (sorry to use that highly inflammatory word!). Immediately when you say Vegas, this is the image. (And then Tony Bennett, Andy Williams, Tom Jones, The Osmonds, etc, naturally fall in line).

Vegas Residencies went rock n roll with Motley Crue you might say? This doesn't change the word association. And it is a negative association as there is a sense of, the artist being peripheral to the gambling house. And this is in fact the truth of the situation as the Casinos book them and offload cheap tickets onto punters (Consequentially you get a lot of casuals and tourist types). It is inherently a 'nostalgia market'. Now nostalgia can be good in doses but when you go to Vegas you usually have already relinquished your creativity and are there solely for the cash. (In fairness to Presley though, he still occasionally recorded and still produced the odd hit, e.g. Moody Blue.). In Vegas you are there to deliver the hits to casuals like a 'good boy.' Someone like Neil Young wouldn't touch the thing. The whole enterprise is cash-induced and quite, quite far from that rock n roll/punk rock spirit.

Now Stinson, for choosing to accompany Rose and co. buys into the enterprise. The association of, 'Vegas wash-out', will attach itself. Stinsons contemporaries will naturally wonder why he is playing Guns N Roses's greatest-hits in a Vegas Residency. Some of his fans might wonder why he is doing this (though obviously not you). It is a blot on a career.

Just like we cannot remember Presley solely for 1954-8 - as much as we would like to. We have to acknowledge 1969-77 (even though the first year or two in Vegas wasn't that bad).

So essentially, it's because of a stereotype attached with the concept of a Vegas Residency? Well fuck that shit, it's just a bunch of bullshit hangover from Elvises days when people were mad at their hero for not growing up into what they wanted him to grow up into, it's all bullshit and bluster and nothing to do with music or quality of performance. And lots of top end artists of great integrity do things that have a certain stigma attached to them but they don't care cuz they are who they are and they do what the fuck they want, didn't Dylan recently release an album of Christmas classics?

And i wouldn't like to just remember Elvis for 54/58, i remember Elvis for some of the amazing songs he produced in the 70s, this is what i mean about people and their journo summaries of artists being a load of bullshit, i mean have you heard some of the stuff the E was pumping out in the 70s? There's some brilliant beautiful stuff in there.

People that enjoy music enjoy music for musics sake...the rest are just a bunch of wannabe historians trying to like, make shit easily sum-up-able, like they're Hunter Thompson writing about the end of the 60s, the fact is Elvis had a helluva lot of musical mileage in him and it's evident on the recordings he did even in the 70s. It's just a shame a bunch of dilletantes would rather just like do bullshit summation screeds when they probably haven't even heard the music they're talking about or they wouldn't say the shit they do.

The truth is that these people are just a bunch of spazzed out hero worshipping weenies that never forgave Axl for allowing his waist to grow.

Edited September 28, 2012 by sugaraylen