Unofficial GNR Social Media Update / Discussion

[RussTCB]

9 minutes ago, Order of Nine said:

I was trying to be funny!!!

Seriously man..

If you don't like me just say it. I can.live with that. 

It doesn't have anything to do with liking or not liking someone. It has to do with moderating discussion. 

22 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

One time he alluded to more music, another time he told the fans they'd better wait for the second coming of Jesus instead.

I guess we choose to hang upon his promising statements because that's what we wish for to happen.

Well... The first one was a statement about the future of new material in general. The second was specifically about the first album from all the promised forthcoming material. What's funny is the one thing he said not to wait for actually happened lol. It's the rest we're waiting on. 

[RussTCB]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I absolutely believe that part of the motivation behind Axl getting Slash and Duff back into the band is him knowing the fans would appreciate it. 

 

I do believe and agree with this. Overall, I don't see this tour as a big money grab like many others do. I do think that's some of the koti but not all of it. I very much think part of the reason Slash & Duff are back is because Axl knew it would make a lot of fans happy. 

[Blackstar]

24 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

Well... The first one was a statement about the future of new material in general. The second was specifically about the first album from all the promised forthcoming material. What's funny is the one thing he said not to wait for actually happened lol. It's the rest we're waiting on. 

Yeah, it did, although five or six years later - but before Jesus

Then, in 2009, after the release, there was this:

When's the next album?

Have no idea and don't care. Hopefully, we'll be working 'Chinese' for a good bit. Of course there's the same idiots that have been around forever already demanding release dates.

How much material is there?

Not as much as Baz [Sebastian Bach] thinks he heard! Really, it doesn't matter. If things go well enough, we'd like to get another out at some point in our lifetimes.

Is anything finished?

Depends how you look at it.

How do you look at it?

Not something we've focused on.

You're not saying much.

You got that? What I can say is if you don't like this, then you probably won't like that. Same people, lots more approaches, bit meaner in places and darker in some. Robin does a really great Stevie Ray Vaughan-type solo on one track.

Then, in 2014 he was "seriously considering" it.

And in 2016 he said he wanted to put out a GnR album.

I don't think any of Axl's statements through the years in regards to new music is something to seriously rely upon

Edited April 4, 2018 by Blackstar

[Blackstar]

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

@Blackstar You're forgetting that Axl posted a photo in a recording studio a year or so ago in response to that rumour floating around that he was dead. He also said they were looking into new music at the China Exchange.

I mentioned both in the end of my post

[killuridols]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

I think it is VERY healthy to not feel artists owe their fans anything. Such feelings are likely to just result in disappointment since artists rarely can live up to the expectations of their devoted fans. To be a happy GN'R fan I think you have to go further, to a "always hope, never expect" mentality, but that's a digression.

Not even in a MORAL sense to Guns N' Roses owe their fans anything. The world doesn't work that way. It would make business sense to honor the hardcore fans and it would be a nice gesture to do so, but there is no moral obligations that they act in any special way simply because some people really, really, really like them.

I dont think "artists rarely live up to the expectations of their devoted fans" is a true statement. There are tons of artists who deliver tons of material and yeah, they may not appeal to a portion of their fans but they surely appeal to the other portions.

Even Guns N' Roses does that! The NITL tour appealed to a lot of people, I'd say the vast majority and others decided to pass from it, for different reasons, but I really don't see lots of unhappy fans.

Morality is in the field of philosophy and religion, so in that sense, someone could decide whether they have a moral obligation towards others or not. You deciding they (the band) don't have a moral obligation doesn't necessarily coincide with what the whole band thinks about it. I know Axl considers he doesn't "owe" us anything. Sometimes I wonder if that's the real way he feels about it or it is an excuse for his inability to release material. I will never know.... but I'm not sure Slash or Duff feel the same way or... well... Steven DOES think the fans are "owed" a whole reunion and that is his opinion, as respectable as the others.

 

52 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

I do believe and agree with this. Overall, I don't see this tour as a big money grab like many others do. I do think that's some of the koti but not all of it. I very much think part of the reason Slash & Duff are back is because Axl knew it would make a lot of fans happy. 

If Axl really thought of it in those terms, then it means he does have a sense of moral obligation that arises from his internal feelings.

I am more inclined to believe that they reunited because of an external pressure that is combined of: their pockets running dry + what the industry wanted + what the fans wanted

 

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by killuridols

[SoulMonster]

40 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

@Blackstar You're forgetting that Axl posted a photo in a recording studio a year or so ago in response to that rumour floating around that he was dead. He also said they were looking into new music at the China Exchange.

@SoulMonster You talk about how you're 42 and how you've had all this time to become jaded and learned not to expect anything. But I'm 26. I'm late to the party torment and so are many others. What do we do? What do you feel we owe you? You and others keep saying over and over how 'people' on this forum feel they are owed something, well, I haven't seen that. Just hopes and dreams my friend.
 

What you owe me? Nothing. What you should do? Enjoy life and be happy. Don't waste time being disappointed in something as trivial as a band not releasing their fifth record. 

I have seen people say they are owed (killuridols said it), and that mentality keeps popping up now and again here at the forum. And even if no one had said that right now, it was still the topic at hand when I entered the discussion. 

[SoulMonster]

36 minutes ago, killuridols said:

I dont think "artists rarely live up to the expectations of their devoted fans" is a true statement. There are tons of artists who deliver tons of material and yeah, they may not appeal to a portion of their fans but they surely appeal to the other portions.

Even Guns N' Roses does that! The NITL tour appealed to a lot of people, I'd say the vast majority and others decided to pass from it, for different reasons, but I really don't see lots of unhappy fans.

Morality is in the field of philosophy and religion, so in that sense, someone could decide whether they have a moral obligation towards others or not. You deciding they (the band) don't have a moral obligation doesn't necessarily coincide with what the whole band thinks about it. I know Axl considers he doesn't "owe" us anything. Sometimes I wonder if that's the real way he feels about it or it is an excuse for his inability to release material. I will never know.... but I'm not sure Slash or Duff feel the same way or... well... Steven DOES think the fans are "owed" a whole reunion and that is his opinion, as respectable as the others.

I am sure many people, including band members, feel they should do more for the fans. But that doesn't mean that's the only valid opinion. I don't feel that this is within what is universal codes of ethics. An artist must be allowed to be incredible bad at fan base relations, an artist must be allowed to make all kinds of moronic strategic decisions. An artist must be allowed to be an asshole. If Axl feels he doesn't owe us anything (and I agree with you that he might feel otherwise), that's not something I can object to. Again, in my opinion it would be more decent if he was more accommodating to us, but I can't agree with him being morally obligated to change his behavior for us. He shouldn't feel morally obligated to do more for us. If it was mandatory for artists to behave in certain ways, if that was some kind of unwritten rule about artistry, and they couldn't start sharing their art without it coming with certain obligations, then I feel some people wouldn't become artists at all. 

[6lake sa66ath]

But...

Wheres all the tweets at?!

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

DJ has so many projects going on so I doubt he's hurting any.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said:

In my mind, randomly and without cause going on and on to people about how entitled 

There is nothing "random" about joining a discussion about a specific topic.

It is not "without cause" when someone in this very thread has explicitly stated they feel owed by the band.

And I don't direct my comments to anyone other than those who share that specific sentiment. Way to go meta on a discussion.

[killuridols]

13 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I am sure many people, including band members, feel they should do more for the fans. But that doesn't mean that's the only valid opinion. I don't feel that this is within what is universal codes of ethics. An artist must be allowed to be incredible bad at fan base relations, an artist must be allowed to make all kinds of moronic strategic decisions. An artist must be allowed to be an asshole. If Axl feels he doesn't owe us anything (and I agree with you that he might feel otherwise), that's not something I can object to. Again, in my opinion it would be more decent if he was more accommodating to us, but I can't agree with him being morally obligated to change his behavior for us. He shouldn't feel morally obligated to do more for us. If it was mandatory for artists to behave in certain ways, if that was some kind of unwritten rule about artistry, and they couldn't start sharing their art without it coming with certain obligations, then I feel some people wouldn't become artists at all. 

I didn't say that's the only valid opinion and everything that I write here is my opinion. I always try to make it clear that it is my opinion. Sometimes I believe I don't need to make it clear but it seems like you've taken what I said as that I mean all of you should think that way and feel the band owe you something.

I do think that many of the band decisions can be objected from the point of view of a forum discussion.
Do I have to clear up that shit too? It becomes so difficult to be constantly clearing up shit but seriously, did you ever think I wanted to "sue" them because I think they owe me something?

Nothing is mandatory on anything... again... why do we have to take everything so literal? No one in here is thinking or saying that the band is CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED to deliver an album or shows or merchandise to the fans every X amount of time.

But the last part of your comment, I think applies a lot more to street artists and people who do not SELL their art, rather than the big company that Guns N' Roses is.

 

[Fourteenbeers]

2 hours ago, RussTCB said:

I do believe and agree with this. Overall, I don't see this tour as a big money grab like many others do. I do think that's some of the koti but not all of it. I very much think part of the reason Slash & Duff are back is because Axl knew it would make a lot of fans happy. 

You are less cynical than me, which is nice. I think the reason Slash (and to some extent Duff) are back because majority of the people who buy the tickets don't think that: Axl+ hired guns = Gn'R (neither do I, by the way).   So I believe it's mostly just smart business.  That being said, last summer when I saw them, Axl seemed to be the one of the big 3 who was really enjoying himself onstage and making an effort to entertain.  So maybe he gets more from this than just money.  I generally feel torn - on one hand I still feel sad because of the whole Izzy situation. On the other hand I was happy to see my favorite rock band live for the first time in my life. 

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

What you owe me? Nothing. What you should do? Enjoy life and be happy. Don't waste time being disappointed in something as trivial as a band not releasing their fifth record. 

I have seen people say they are owed (killuridols said it), and that mentality keeps popping up now and again here at the forum. And even if no one had said that right now, it was still the topic at hand when I entered the discussion. 

I do believe (or hope?) that nobody here truly thinks that they are in a position to dictate/demand what Guns n' Roses should or should not do.  But part of being a fan of any band/artist often includes bickering/discussing with other fans about the band/artist in question. What are best lineups, best songs, what kind of direction we'd like them to go musically, hopes and dreams (like @Oldest Goat said earlier)  And there's nothing wrong with that. TBH at times the bickering here turns into straight out arguments, which is not good. 

Guns n' Roses is a band  that many have described: what could have been. The magic that they had and the impact they made in their prime was something unique .... and after that - so much wasted time and potential. I think this is the reason why there is so much could've/would've/should've- discussions and arguments in this forum.   

Gn'R doesn't owe us anything. Of course they don't. They can do what they want and so can we.

I personally believe at this point, if we are just talking about money, they don't even need their actual fans, the casuals are enough to fill their pockets. The casuals know the big hits, buy majority of the concert tickets and don't dare to demand/expect anything.  Maybe I'm little too cynical..

Did this discussion begin with Adler's brother's rant ?   Thread derailed really badly. 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Fourteenbeers

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, killuridols said:

I didn't say that's the only valid opinion and everything that I write here is my opinion. I always try to make it clear that it is my opinion. Sometimes I believe I don't need to make it clear but it seems like you've taken what I said as that I mean all of you should think that way and feel the band owe you something.

I do think that many of the band decisions can be objected from the point of view of a forum discussion.
Do I have to clear up that shit too? It becomes so difficult to be constantly clearing up shit but seriously, did you ever think I wanted to "sue" them because I think they owe me something?

Nothing is mandatory on anything... again... why do we have to take everything so literal? No one in here is thinking or saying that the band is CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED to deliver an album or shows or merchandise to the fans every X amount of time.

But the last part of your comment, I think applies a lot more to street artists and people who do not SELL their art, rather than the big company that Guns N' Roses is.

 

I have not said anything that would imply I do not understand you are sharing your personal opinions nor have I said anything that should be construed to be understood as you believing the band is contractually obligated to anything towards you. We are still talking about your personal opinion that the band from a moral sense owes you something. So let's stick to that, because I don't feel for moving any goalposts.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Fourteenbeers said:

I do believe (or hope?) that nobody here truly thinks that they are in a position to dictate/demand what Guns n' Roses should or should not do.  But part of being a fan of any band/artist often includes bickering/discussing with other fans about the band/artist in question. What are best lineups, best songs, what kind of direction we'd like them to go musically, hopes and dreams (like @Oldest Goat said earlier)  And there's nothing wrong with that. TBH at times the bickering here turns into straight out arguments, which is not good. 

And I have NEVER said there is anything wrong in bickering or having different opinions on the stae of GN'R. As anyone who knows me would confirm: I LOVE differences of opinion. I am EXCLUSIVELLY commenting on that minority of posters who feel they are OWED anything by the band. Let's not conflate the issue.

Agreed with the rest of your post.

[Fourteenbeers]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

And I have NEVER said there is anything wrong in bickering or having different opinions on the stae of GN'R. As anyone who knows me would confirm: I LOVE differences of opinion. I am EXCLUSIVELLY commenting on that minority of posters who feel they are OWED anything by the band. Let's not conflate the issue.

Agreed with the rest of your post.

Glad you made your point clear. 

[DieselDaisy]

I think Soul got bored with arguing about religion and decided to ''return to his roots''.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Oldest Goat said:

1. You and I tend to get along so I would hope my words aren't coming across as aggressive(it's somewhat early in the morning so maybe they are?) I don't have a problem with you or anyone joining a discussion. That's not what I'm saying at all. I said making, basically, entirely baseless claims and acting as if the apparent issue is widespread and everyone and their mother is doing it; that is random. If you were saying "IF people do this IF people do that" or directing your disagreements to the ones you're actually disagreeing with, then yeah, you're just making a point and that's fair enough.

Again, this started with someone explicitly saying the band owe us. I believe it is a minority of fans who share that specific sentiment. But I also believe it is much more wide-spread than just that one person It certainly allows for a discussion, in my opinion, even if it is a rare thing.

I also really didn't mean to come across as claiming every fan thinks this way, and if anyone felt I somehow accused the whole fan base for being entitled, if I failed at making it clear I was only talking about those who actually feel they are owed by the band, and felt offended as a result, then I apologize for not making myself sufficiently clear. 

[killuridols]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I have not said anything that would imply I do not understand you are sharing your personal opinions nor have I said anything that should be construed to be understood as you believing the band is contractually obligated to anything towards you. We are still talking about your personal opinion that the band from a moral sense owes you something. So let's stick to that, because I don't feel for moving any goalposts.

Fair enough.
You've stated you don't think they have a moral obligation towards us. I said they do.
Seems like we are not going to agree on that as I will not change my opinion, and sounds like you won't change yours either.

Somewhere in the middle it got confused with being owed albums, shows and other commercial products. There were mentions of words like customer, money, business, sales.... all things that do not belong to the moral terrain. They are all regulated by laws of commerce, mostly.

What else is left to be discussed about my personal opinion then?

[SoulMonster]

Just now, killuridols said:

Fair enough.
You've stated you don't think they have a moral obligation towards us. I said they do.
Seems like we are not going to agree on that as I will not change my opinion, and sounds like you won't change yours either.

Somewhere in the middle it got confused with being owed albums, shows and other commercial products. There were mentions of words like customer, money, business, sales.... all things that do not belong to the moral terrain. They are all regulated by laws of commerce, mostly.

What else is left to be discussed about my personal opinion then?

I don't know. I feel it is properly debated by now. But we could pry a bit into your personal opinion on moral obligations, because it is quite fascinating?

If you hold a door for someone, are they morally obligated to hold the door for you? Even if they never asked for you to hold it for them in the first place?

If you fancy the neighbor, is he (or she) morally obligated to be nice to you?

If you LOVE Breaking Bad, have bought the series on all available formats and recommended it to all your friends, is the director obligated to make a new TV series in the same vein?

If the majority of Manchester United fans wants Mourinho to get the boot, are the owners morally obligated to act accordingly?

Just curious, is all.

 

 

[Ratam]

What happen that i not receive my notifications,in n unofficial GNR social media and when finally receive a exemple:post of @Kwick1 i received in this moment a post of 6 hours ago .And not only this thread another sections of forum the same problem😯sorry for post here this,but i try in support section and  don't work out .in this thread i not received 3 pages.

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

If you fancy the neighbor, is he (or she) morally obligated to be nice to you?

Gives a whole new meaning to, ''keeping up with the Joneses''. 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Oldest Goat said:

@SoulMonster If a tree falls in the woods but no one is around to hear it...does it make a noise?

Does it even fall?

[Ratam]

32 minutes ago, Fourteenbeers said:

You are less cynical than me, which is nice. I think the reason Slash (and to some extent Duff) are back because majority of the people who buy the tickets don't think that: Axl+ hired guns = Gn'R (neither do I, by the way).   So I believe it's mostly just smart business.  That being said, last summer when I saw them, Axl seemed to be the one of the big 3 who was really enjoying himself onstage and putting an effort to entertain.  So maybe he gets more from this than just money.  I generally feel torn - on one hand I still feel sad because of the whole Izzy situation on the other hand I was happy to see my favorite rock band live for the first time in my life. 

I do believe (or hope?) that nobody here truly thinks that they are in a position to dictate/demand what Guns n' Roses should or should not do.  But part of being a fan of any band/artist often includes bickering/discussing with other fans about the band/artist in question. What are best lineups, best songs, what kind of direction we'd like them to go musically, hopes and dreams (like @Oldest Goat said earlier)  And there's nothing wrong with that. TBH at times the bickering here turns into straight out arguments, which is not good. 

Guns n' Roses is a band  that many have described: what could have been. The magic that they had and the impact they made in their prime that was something unique .... and after that - so much wasted time and potential. I think this is the reason why there is so much could've/would've/should've- discussions and arguments in this forum.   

Gn'R doesn't owe us anything. Of course they don't. They can do what they want and so can we.

I personally believe at this point, if we are just talking about money, they don't even need their actual fans, the casuals are enough to fill their pockets. The casuals know the big hits, buy majority of the concert tickets and don't dare to demand/expect anything.  Maybe I'm little too cynical..

Did this discussion begin with Adler's brother's rant ?   Thread derailed really badly. 

If you go the Blabbermouth site the most that comment the Steven brother rant they attack Steven and his brother.very different the reaction in this Forum😨

[scooby845]

TL; DR

[Fourteenbeers]

14 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Was there even a tree?

Spoiler