Is there anything fundamentally wrong with being a nostalgia act?

[ZoSoRose]

Well, I think that it is pretty certain now that GNR has reached the same level as Aerosmith, Bon Jovi, Van Halen, Def Leppard, Kiss, etc where they are essentially a "nostalgia" band. Touring every few years, playing the hits, not really pushing boundaries or doing anything creative anymore, etc. Now, a lot of these older bands have kind of deserved that. A band like Bon Jovi or Aerosmith, for example, has been around for decades, released tons of music, and built their following. So, I think its cool if they just want to play the hits and all that.

What makes GNR different? Should a band always try and push new material and creativity?

[OmarBradley]

Yeah (to the thread title).

Well, no actually. Fundamentally, I guess not. But the way "GNR" does it - yeah.

As for the question, "what makes GNR different from Aerosmith, VH, AC/DC, etc.?" I think that's pretty blatant.

Edited March 18, 2015 by OmarBradley

[Mysteron]

Well, I think that it is pretty certain now that GNR has reached the same level as Aerosmith, Bon Jovi, Van Halen, Def Leppard, Kiss, etc where they are essentially a "nostalgia" band. Touring every few years, playing the hits, not really pushing boundaries or doing anything creative anymore, etc. Now, a lot of these older bands have kind of deserved that. A band like Bon Jovi or Aerosmith, for example, has been around for decades, released tons of music, and built their following. So, I think its cool if they just want to play the hits and all that.

What makes GNR different? Should a band always try and push new material and creativity?

I think you are right, but what makes GN'R different is Axl has a journey to complete with his unreleased material.

Jon Bon Jovi is forever a knob end.

[Gordon Comstock]

To the thread title: yes. However, since Axl is not a normal artist, you only get the nostalgia tours and not the accompanying annual Greatest Hits re-isuue.

Part of the problem is, Axl already did his nostalgia touring, during which there were promises of lots of new material [which one would assume would later replace 'old' songs in the setlist].

[gnfnrs1972]

If you know your a nostalgia act there is nothing wrong with it. If you have no clue you are a nostalgia act then yes it's very wrong.

[Apollo]

There is no problem with it at all.

But the difference or why people are so frustrated is because Axl and other band members have been talking about them having TONS of music just sitting in the vault - and Axl and band members have talked about releasing that music. And they've been talking about it for more than a decade.

If Axl had told us the well was dry and he wasn't going to release more music - then I don't think anybody would really care that much. But don't talk about 70 songs or 24 of 39 songs being done or two full albums being finished........and don't talk about round one, and same time next year, and we're not doing all this to not releasing it, etc, etc,............and then never release the music.

BJ is still putting out albums. Their last, in 2013, debuted at number one and sold over a million copies. His tours still sell out and are usually in the top 10 for the year. So I'd hardly say he has lost all his creativity.

[Seb91]

Well, I think that it is pretty certain now that GNR has reached the same level as Aerosmith, Bon Jovi, Van Halen, Def Leppard, Kiss, etc where they are essentially a "nostalgia" band. Touring every few years, playing the hits, not really pushing boundaries or doing anything creative anymore, etc. Now, a lot of these older bands have kind of deserved that. A band like Bon Jovi or Aerosmith, for example, has been around for decades, released tons of music, and built their following. So, I think its cool if they just want to play the hits and all that.

What makes GNR different? Should a band always try and push new material and creativity?

Was thinking this the other day - two of my favourite acts, The Stones and Paul McCartney, have setlists that feature more towards old material than new/recent stuff. One big difference is age - those guys are like 20 years older than Axl so they've kind of earned the right to rest on their laurels (although Macca did put out in album a couple of years ago!) Another factor is the amount of material in their back catalogue - old Guns only released two records of new material (fair enough one was a double album), an EP and a covers record. NuGuns have only released CD. So that's only three main albums of original material (four if you include UYI as 2). Second, in the case of The Stones, they have 3 members that date all the way back to the '60s and Ronnie Wood joined back in '75. This means that most of the band members aren't covering other people's stuff. Thirdly, Axl spent years saying that he wanted to explore exciting new musical areas that the ex band members didn't want to - so to release one record and then become a nostalgia act kind of goes against that.

[maynard]

Being a nostalgia act with a completely different band which was designed to fundamentally erase the work of the old band and create a new era of modern and awesome music is kinda silly.

[ZoSoRose]

Lots of good points, I pretty much agree that Axl's case is different because of content, promises, and band members

[supercool]

it's not even a genuine nostalgia act because except for axl, none of the guys playing with him have anything to do with gnr.

the last years had more to do with parody than with nostalgia.

[valengf]

IMO, there is nothing wrong with it, but I love how Axl always intended/show to take the band forward and releasing new music (of course, at the pace of a giant turtle in the middle of the desert) and that it's what makes me keep being a GNR fan. Hope, just hope for the day Axl will finally release something new. And in the meantime, I enjoy the shit out of EVERY album.
(sorry if my English was bad, it's not my first language)

[Mansin Humanity]

No, there's not. But do it right if that's all you're gonna do.

[Powerage5]

To answer the thread title - no, I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with being a nostalgia act, but on the premise that you promote/advertise yourself as such (Or at least don't try to promote yourself as something else). I think GN'R falls into that category of "nostalgia act that tries to appear as more" (Couldn't think of a more specific way to word it). Aside from the fact that I believe we've yet to hear GN'R's swan song, I can see why nearly all GN'R fans see them as a nostalgia act; continual touring with no apparent reason or cause, the same setlist night to night (And even tour to tour more or less), a group of musicians who blur the lines between "band member" and "touring musician", etc. Then there's the fact that GN'R has a tiny back catalogue to chooses from, which is really two strikes against them; it gives the impression that they're not a recording act, and it gives them less music to choose from when touring. If Axl were to admit (Assuming this is his intent/plan) that yeah, he's just touring the hits for the sake of it and to rake in the money, I feel like less people would have a problem with GN'R's current state.

[dalsh327]

"Nostalgia act" is a weird label, no one thinks of Dylan or Van Morrison as nostalgia acts. When Robert Plant tours, is anyone thinking he's doing a "nostalgia" tour? If people go see Jeff Beck or Santana, they might be going to see a known song, but they're there more to see the musicianship.

Alice Cooper might be a nostalgia act, KISS, or Motley Crue, but they're putting on a stage show that people have come to expect. Iron Maiden's "Caught Somewhere Back in Time" tour could be called a nostalgia tour but when they were promoting "Matter of Life and Death", I don't know if you could call that a nostalgia tour.

Elton John - people are there for the back catalog and I would have called Face To Face a "cash grab tour" more than a nostalgia tour. I don't know if I could call either of them nostalgia acts..who's nostalgia are we talking about? The audience got stoned to "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" or the audience that watched "Lion King" a million times?

Aerosmith had 2 careers and 2 different audiences. It's like talking about 70s Billy Joel where he put The Stranger and Glass Houses out, and "80s Joel"

[GUNNER PT]

Nothing wrong ...

But you know ... some people always have to find something negative in everything regarding GN'R.

[chevelle]

To me, yeah. It's sad to see a band essentially give up and say 'we're done making anything we think is important, time to drag the hits around for money'.

[majormayhem]

Yes. All this talk of a vision and we get nostalgia. So, yes. I'm disappointed. Feel like I've been bamboozled. I'd much rather an album every few years even if it wasn't the greatest album ever because at least we would be seeing some effort. It seems Axl Rose is content with traveling the world and being a nostalgia act because he doesn't "want to deprive the fans something they enjoy." And that's cool...but he shouldn't act as if he has some grand vision and a new direction. He's a bitch and he sounds like shit. He won't announce his retirement because that would take the mystery about him away and that's all he has left.

[Iron MikeyJ]

I guess the thing that bothers me the most is how upset most fans are with the situation. I have just accepted an "it is what is" mentality. I can't make him reunite with the old guys, nor can I make him release an album, so I just think, whatever..... But some of you are so vocal about your frustrations, I mean Shit it's really not that important. But I guess that's just my perspective.

Another thing that I find somewhat disingenuous is the out put complaints. Now, yes I for one do in fact wish we had more albums, and I don't think ggnrs discography is near the stones or acdc, but it's not nearly as bad as some make it out to be. I did the math on Axls actual number of recorded minutes of music, (it was a while ago in a different thread obviously) but it really surprised me. Axl is only about 34 minutes behind Zeppelin (not counting Coda, since Coda isn't a true album, and about 70 behind if you do count it), and is in the same ballpark with DLR VH and Sammy VH, when counted sepratly of course. Which I'm not saying neither VH or Zeppelin have massive discographies, But you don't hear their fans complain about their out puts.

Having said that honestly only two potential gnr albums are even "out there". The first was the mythical 1996 album, which is the I really AM pisses about (again I've gone over the songs that could have or should have been on this one in other threads). It would have been the proper final album for gnr, and I blame all parties for it not happening, but Bring it back home is fucking sleazily awesome, I would have dug the Shit out of that song in 96. The other album is the the 2nd half of CD obviously. Which I do Think will see the light of day eventually, so I'm not so worried about this one. So honestly the 96 album is the only one I personally feel screwed out of. Which had it been released, I think this whole discography debate would not hold water.

I guess what I'm saying is that if Axl never releases another album, that isn't going to make me like gnr less. Which some of you I think it will, or at least you make it sound like it will.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Iron MikeyJ

[Tadsy]

Yes... there is.

The potential of this band after 93 and what actually got achieved since... what a fucking let down.

I bet theres more than a few people who must look back and think they pissed the next 22 years away compared to what they could have achieved.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Tadsy

[Iron MikeyJ]

Yes... there is.

The potential of this band after 93 and what actually got achieved since... what a fucking let down.

I bet theres more than a few people who must look back and think they pissed the next 22 years away compared to what they could have achieved.

By who's standards, yours? The media? The general public? At the end of the day what does it matter? So your name can be higher on some "all time greatest band" list that was written by some critic? Its not like music is a sport where every year one team is the champ, and if you are good enough become a dynasty. Which I'm not trying to defend axl or gnr here, I'm talking bigger than that, bigger than music in general, I'm saying if you are playing for 1 person or 5 million what does it really fucking matter? If you love doing it, then great. But why does everything and everyone have to be X famous or X successful, and who decides these things? Imo, you could make an album of absolute awful shitting noises, but if you love it and are happy with it, shouldn't that be all that matters. Why must we strive So hard to please other people, when at the end of the day it is ourselves that we must be happy with. Seeking the approval of others just seems like a waste of time imo.

Sorry for getting so deep. ?I just see people like Axl or Michael Jackson or whomever else and I don't envy them. I mean sure. I did when I was younger, but not anymore. I wouldn't want to be Axl Rose, I wouldn't want to be Slash, I just don't think these are really people that deserve the pedastool society has put them on. Yes they are or were amazingly talented at what they did, But look at what it cost them. I look at Axl and think, "no way is that dude happy, I mean really happy". He has become a slave to his fans, and the media. And you can't win, not anymore, not in today's cynical society. No matter what he does, some people are going to hate him, or be pissed at him, etc. Its like why even try, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Who needs that life? I have a hard enough time keeping the people around me pleased, I can't imagine trying to please millions. Sounds exhausting...

Edited March 18, 2015 by Iron MikeyJ

[bran]

To me, yeah. It's sad to see a band essentially give up and say 'we're done making anything we think is important, time to drag the hits around for money'.

this is exactly right.

[DR DOOM]

Nothing wrong with being a nostalgia or greatest hits act.

However, all the statements like "not working on this to keep it buried" and all that mistakenly gave us the impression Axl was going to...you know, do something more than what he has with GNR.

It's been over a decade since Buckethead split, Finck's been gone for close to 8 years..."New GNR" is almost as distant as the band Axl choked out to get the name he so desperately wanted, and he's left with the D-team, the dregs.

[stella]

No, there's nothing wrong with it. I do respect older bands like Aerosmith that keep releasing new music intermittently,, but every band has to do what they feel is right for themselves. When you're a band that is twenty, thirty or forty years old you're always going to have fans that are there because of nostalgia; because they like the work you did way back when or associate it with their youth. It is what it is. If you know your (past) music has made people happy and you're still capable of playing it, why not?

Edited March 18, 2015 by stella

[darknightfan]

No. It's just fustrating when the act does not realize it.

[Tom2112]

Well, I think that it is pretty certain now that GNR has reached the same level as Aerosmith, Bon Jovi, Van Halen, Def Leppard, Kiss, etc where they are essentially a "nostalgia" band. Touring every few years, playing the hits, not really pushing boundaries or doing anything creative anymore, etc. Now, a lot of these older bands have kind of deserved that. A band like Bon Jovi or Aerosmith, for example, has been around for decades, released tons of music, and built their following. So, I think its cool if they just want to play the hits and all that.

What makes GNR different? Should a band always try and push new material and creativity?

Ordinarily no, if you have a huge back catalogue and you no longer enjoy writing and recording new material but you still like playing live... there's no problem. If you're Guns and you have 3 albums... and you neglect one of the 3 almost completely the nostalgia thing doesn't work so well.