If GNR would have reunited sooner, would that tour have been more than just a boring cash grab?

[3rd Wheel]

Not without new music. It's all about new music. Without new music, it's a cash grab. With new music, it feels like an honest go of it.

[RONIN]

1 hour ago, Tonto said:

I define success the same way most people do; album sales, concert turn out, charts, money, etc. GN'R, VR, Slash, Loaded, KOS, have done very well since the old line-up split, selling millions of albums and playing to millions of fans all around the world. Izzy? Not so much.

Izzy has released eleven solo albums, yeah, but they're mostly homemade, self released on iTunes, RS rip off's, with low quality microsoft paint covers. No one outside the forums even know they exist, that's hardly the brains of the operation, is it?

If you like his solo tunes, that's great, I don't, I think they are bland and derivative. Slash, Duff and Axl on the other hand have produced many, many songs over the years that I love and that many, many fans love. Collectively they have done very well in that regard, post Juju Hounds, Izzy didn't even make a dent. 

But the question is, how successful would Axl have been without having the GnR brand behind him? Had he gone solo, would he have been able to find success with Chinese Democracy? As it is, that album only went 2x platinum and undersold industry expectations. Death Magnetic outsold Chinese Democracy.

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, Tonto said:

I define success the same way most people do; album sales, concert turn out, charts, money, etc. GN'R, VR, Slash, Loaded, KOS, have done very well since the old line-up split, selling millions of albums and playing to millions of fans all around the world. Izzy? Not so much.

Izzy has released eleven solo albums, yeah, but they're mostly homemade, self released on iTunes, RS rip off's, with low quality microsoft paint covers. No one outside the forums even know they exist, that's hardly the brains of the operation, is it?

I define success most of all, studio wise, by quality of output. If someone has released plenty of great albums, he/she can be judged as being successful by me. Considering Rose barely has any post 1991 output to speak of - one paltry album and a soundtrack song - we can safely rule him out using my parameters. I have no interest whatsoever in sales figures and money. Good for the artist I suppose, but then some of the worst recorded music in history would be judged ''successful'' using this criteria.  

I never knew low key production methods were an arbiter of quality and taste? It is a pity you cannot appreciate the solo gifts of Stradlin who contributed so many masterpieces to Guns.

[RONIN]

MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice each have a diamond certified album for sales in excess of 10x platinum. 

[soon]

(couldn't post media) 

Edited October 11, 2017 by soon

[Tonto]

2 hours ago, RONIN said:

But the question is, how successful would Axl have been without having the GnR brand behind him? Had he gone solo, would he have been able to find success with Chinese Democracy? As it is, that album only went 2x platinum and undersold industry expectations. Death Magnetic outsold Chinese Democracy.

He would have had at least equal success to Duff and Slash, no? That sounds fair and he may have had even more success than them, who knows? He certainly would have had more success than Izzy has had,  as he's far more famous. Even now that he's back with Slash and Duff he's still the main focus of the band, he get's more press than any of them.

Chinese Sold very well worldwide, it undersold in the US, yes, but worldwide it did very well. It sold millions of copies. 

[Tonto]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

I define success most of all, studio wise, by quality of output. If someone has released plenty of great albums, he/she can be judged as being successful by me. Considering Rose barely has any post 1991 output to speak of - one paltry album and a soundtrack song - we can safely rule him out using my parameters. I have no interest whatsoever in sales figures and money. Good for the artist I suppose, but then some of the worst recorded music in history would be judged ''successful'' using this criteria.  

I never knew low key production methods were an arbiter of quality and taste? It is a pity you cannot appreciate the solo gifts of Stradlin who contributed so many masterpieces to Guns.

Well you are welcome to define it that way if you wish, but that's completely subjective and arbitrary.

Further, you stated Izzy released 11 studio albums as if the number was important. Is it quality or quantity you are interested in? You keep referring to Axl only releasing one album too, so I'm confused by your premise. More albums equal better in your mind? Which is it?

Izzy contributed some great things to GN'R, none of which I hear in his Rolling Stones, REM, rip off albums. On the other hand I think Contraband, Libertad and CD sound like Guns in different ways and all 3 have done very well artistically and commercially since the mid 90's.

[Tonto]

1 hour ago, RONIN said:

MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice each have a diamond certified album for sales in excess of 10x platinum. 

I can quote some really crap albums that sold nothing too, so what's your point? Sales don't equal good music? Everyone knows that.

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by Tonto

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Tonto said:

Well you are welcome to define it that way if you wish, but that's completely subjective and arbitrary.

Further, you stated Izzy released 11 studio albums as if the number was important. Is it quality or quantity you are interested in? You keep referring to Axl only releasing one album too, so I'm confused by your premise. More albums equal better in your mind? Which is it?

Izzy contributed some great things to GN'R, none of which I hear in his Rolling Stones, REM, rip off albums. On the other hand I think Contraband, Libertad and CD sound like Guns in different ways and all 3 have done very well artistically and commercially since the mid 90's.

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, and considering I love all of Izzy's solo albums it is a rather moot point. It is for instance better to have two great albums than one great album, or five great albums than four great albums.

I have eleven of them. 

The only album of those three I like is Libertad, and even then, with some reservations. I disliked both Contraband and Chinese. I prefer Slash's solo album and Snakepit in fact to those two.

[Tonto]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, and considering I love all of Izzy's solo albums it is a rather moot point. It is for instance better to have two great albums than one great album, or five great albums than four great albums.

I have eleven of them. 

The only album of those three I like is Libertad, and even then, with some reservations. I disliked both Contraband and Chinese. I prefer Slash's solo album and Snakepit in fact to those two.

You are right, it is better to have one great album. In this case I would rather have one great album in CD than the 11 mediocre Izzy albums.

People bang on about how prolific Izzy is in the studio but he rarely plays a show. Why doesn't he get out there and play his songs for his fans? 

[RONIN]

18 minutes ago, Tonto said:

He would have had at least equal success to Duff and Slash, no? That sounds fair and he may have had even more success than them, who knows? He certainly would have had more success than Izzy has had,  as he's far more famous. Even now that he's back with Slash and Duff he's still the main focus of the band, he get's more press than any of them.

Fair point - I could agree with that, though I'd say it's Slash who appears to be the star of these shows. He certainly has kept a higher profile than Axl since the 90's and his rejoing GnR now is bigger news since he's been out of the band for so long. 

11 minutes ago, Tonto said:

I can quote some really crap albums that sold nothing too, so what's your point? Sales don't equal good music? Everyone knows that.

 

My point is that success is entirely subjective. Izzy's debut solo album was an artistic and critical success. Chinese Democracy may have undersold Death Magnetic but it was a more successful album artistically than what Metallica put out. Oh my God failed as a single critically and commercially but it's one of my favorite GnR songs and probably the best thing Nu Guns ever did. The barometer for success really depends on the metric you're using and it's not always the same for everyone. Most of the albums I like these days barely have any commercial success and the production on them is pretty low budget. They have way more merit in my eyes than the latest Taylor Swift album though. And for the record, I thought Duff and Slash's solo records were largely trash - would take Izzy or Axl's work any day over their stuff.

[Tonto]

7 minutes ago, RONIN said:

Fair point - I could agree with that, though I'd say it's Slash who appears to be the star of these shows. He certainly has kept a higher profile than Axl since the 90's and his rejoing GnR now is bigger news since he's been out of the band for so long. 

My point is that success is entirely subjective. Izzy's debut solo album was an artistic and critical success. Chinese Democracy may have undersold Death Magnetic but it was a more successful album artistically than what Metallica put out. Oh my God failed as a single critically and commercially but it's one of my favorite GnR songs and probably the best thing Nu Guns ever did. The barometer for success really depends on the metric you're using and it's not always the same for everyone. Most of the albums I like these days barely have any commercial success and the production on them is pretty low budget. They have way more merit in my eyes than the latest Taylor Swift album though. And for the record, I thought Duff and Slash's solo records were largely trash - would take Izzy or Axl's work any day over their stuff.

I don't disagree with you on the points you've raised here. 

I disagreed specifically with @todreamofwolves post about Izzy clearly being the brains of the band. I don't think history has shown us that at all, hence my rebuttal. I think the success of Duff, Slash and Axl, critically and commercially since the old line-up ended show's quite clearly their massive contributions to the band. You have to take into account touring too, not just recorded material, it's part of the identity of the band and Axl brought that to the live shows.

I don't like Izzy's solo stuff, he was certainly important for GN'R, but he seems to have left behind that kind of music and he certainly hasn't had anywhere near the level of critical and commercial success that the other members have had since leaving Guns. 

[DieselDaisy]

Izzy's albums have always attracted good reviews, and his first one sold a bit also. Commercially also you seem to be assuming that Axl, Slash and Duff have always been successful whereas Izzy's career immediately hit the doldrums. Slash was playing clubs - 300 seaters - during the Snakepit era. Duff was dropped from his label, ending up with a recorded album he couldn't put out. The second VR album completely tanked commercially. Rose was playing Vegas casinos by 2014. Commercially their fortunes have certainly fluctuated.

[Sosso]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

 Rose was playing Vegas casinos by 2014. Commercially their fortunes have certainly fluctuated.

Only for a couple of Shows. It's not like that the residency lasted for a couple of years

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Sosso said:

Only for a couple of Shows. It's not like that the residency lasted for a couple of years

That whole period lasted ages. 2011ish onward Guns were absolutely pathetic.

[Tonto]

24 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Izzy's albums have always attracted good reviews, and his first one sold a bit also. Commercially also you seem to be assuming that Axl, Slash and Duff have always been successful whereas Izzy's career immediately hit the doldrums. Slash was playing clubs - 300 seaters - during the Snakepit era. Duff was dropped from his label, ending up with a recorded album he couldn't put out. The second VR album completely tanked commercially. Rose was playing Vegas casinos by 2014. Commercially their fortunes have certainly fluctuated.

Sure, of course they have had up's and downs but they've also had very successful careers since old GN'R ended overall.

I have no problem with Izzy doing what he wants to do, low key, whatever, but to make the claim that his post GN'R work show's him to be the "brains" of the band is ridiculous. His solo stuff doesn't have anything to with GN'R musically, it's completely different. You didn't say that, not sure if you think that, but I was initially responding to someone else. He was very important to the band, granted, but he wasn't the principal songwriter and he isn't the main draw, he's not even in the top 3 live, so it seems like a silly statement to make. 

Edited October 11, 2017 by Tonto

[Sosso]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

That whole period lasted ages. 2011ish onward Guns were absolutely pathetic.

Agreed. But their Las Vegas residencies were very short compared to others. The "Piece of Me" residency from Spears began in 2013 and still isn't over yet.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Sosso

[DieselDaisy]

49 minutes ago, Tonto said:

Sure, of course they have had up's and downs but they've also had very successful careers since old GN'R ended overall.

Not sure I agree. Pre-2016, If you remove Velvet Revolver the theory falls flat on its face with Duff and to a lesser extent Slash. As I said, Slash was playing 300 seaters; I saw him in a little club in Sheffield around 2001. The second Snakepit album ended up being released on some obscure German label and selling around ten copies.

Velvet Revolver was this quasi-GN'R/supergroup with a tremendous amount of economic backing, and even with all that the second album tanked! And Rose has the name, and even with the name his stock was pitiable during that last Ashba era - simply embarrassing. He would have probably been playing keg parties if the three-ingmy reunion hadn't happened.

[Chunder Monkey]

I don't think a 2006 reunion would have led to more content any more than it does now.

It's not like Slash can't record an album in literally days, and it's not like Axl doesn't have a least an album of songs vaulted.

The problem is either Axl has some type of anxiety around writing and releasing new music, or - the band has some type of passive aggressive war going with the record label, or - the rest of the band don't want to risk reopening a fight with Axl about new music considering one of the key issues that led to the breakdown of the old band.

Maybe all 3 of those factors.

What a 2006 reunion would have given us though is perhaps the best quality shows and boots since the 90s. For a guy in his mid 40s Axl was in phenomenal performance shape in that era - both vocally, physically and charisma wise. Shows such as Rock Am Ring 2006 are amazing anyway - the idea of adding the original cast as friends to that era and quality of performance - it would have been great.

Personally I'm happy for them if they make all the money in the world, but it makes me sad that there's no creativity any more in terms of developing music for public  consumption, especially seeing as new music would be a way to maximise their current skills and abilities whereas the changes style of both Axl and Slash is noticeable on older material. (In Axl's case because his voice has more problems now, and in Slash's case because he plays with more shred now than previously).

[Tonto]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Not sure I agree. Pre-2016, If you remove Velvet Revolver the theory falls flat on its face with Duff and to a lesser extent Slash. As I said, Slash was playing 300 seaters; I saw him in a little club in Sheffield around 2001. The second Snakepit album ended up being released on some obscure German label and selling around ten copies.

Velvet Revolver was this quasi-GN'R/supergroup with a tremendous amount of economic backing, and even with all that the second album tanked! And Rose has the name, and even with the name his stock was pitiable during that last Ashba era - simply embarrassing. He would have probably been playing keg parties if the three-ingmy reunion hadn't happened.

Why would you remove VR? If I remove 10 of Izzy's albums then he only released one album. What are we doing here? I'm trying to discuss reality, how can we do that if you want to time travel and change everything?

Slash sold a million copies of the first snakepit record and sold millions more with VR and then his later solo records. He's done very well for himself. He's doing even better now. An Izzy solo record can't be selling more than a couple of thousand copies. Adler's last album did what, 5000? And that was promoted.

So VR and NuGnr were successful because of the GN'R connection? Wow, what a revelation! And you think the Juju Hounds record sold why? Because it was just so good? The only people buying Izzy records are buying them because of his GN'R connection, so again, I don't see your point, do you even have one?

Edited October 11, 2017 by Tonto

[DieselDaisy]

6 minutes ago, Tonto said:

Why would you remove VR? If I remove 10 of Izzy's albums then he only released one album. What are we doing here? I'm trying to discuss reality, how can we do that if you want to time travel and change everything?

Slash sold a million copies of the first snakepit record and sold millions more with VR and then his later solo records. He's done very well for himself. He's doing even better now. An Izzy solo record can't be selling more than a couple of thousand copies. Adler's last album did what, 5000? And that was promoted.

So VR and NuGnr were successful because of the GN'R connection? Wow, what a revelation! And you think the Juju Hounds record sold why? Because it was just so good? The only people buying Izzy records are buying them because of his GN'R connection, so again, I don't see your point, do you even have one?

You're judging a GN'R-affiliated supergroup with a solo artist and you do not see the problem with that? If we judge Slash's and Duff's respective solo careers they're barely more commercially successful than Izzy's. Does Loaded sell substantially more units than Izzy? Did the second Snakepit sell many more?

 

[Tonto]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

You're judging a GN'R-affiliated supergroup with a solo artist and you do not see the problem with that? If we judge Slash's and Duff's respective solo careers they're barely more commercially successful than Izzy's. Does Loaded sell substantially more units than Izzy? Did the second Snakepit sell many more?

 

No I'm not comparing a GN'R-affiliated supergroup with a solo artist, I'm talking about the success of Axl, Slash and Duff post OG GNR in general. They went on and formed successful bands and had successful solo careers. You are the one who compared NUGNR to Izzy, so what would be the problem with comparing VR to Izzy anyway? You're all over the place, mate, you're contradicting your arguments with each new post. What do you want to say?

 

[Sosso]

8 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I define success most of all, studio wise, by quality of output. If someone has released plenty of great albums, he/she can be judged as being successful by me. Considering Rose barely has any post 1991 output to speak of - one paltry album and a soundtrack song - we can safely rule him out using my parameters. I have no interest whatsoever in sales figures and money. Good for the artist I suppose, but then some of the worst recorded music in history would be judged ''successful'' using this criteria.  

I never knew low key production methods were an arbiter of quality and taste? It is a pity you cannot appreciate the solo gifts of Stradlin who contributed so many masterpieces to Guns.

That would mean that Buckethead is much more successfull than Guns N' Roses right now, wouldn't it?

Edited October 11, 2017 by Sosso

[Ratam]

3 hours ago, Tonto said:

No I'm not comparing a GN'R-affiliated supergroup with a solo artist, I'm talking about the success of Axl, Slash and Duff post OG GNR in general. They went on and formed successful bands and had successful solo careers. You are the one who compared NUGNR to Izzy, so what would be the problem with comparing VR to Izzy anyway? You're all over the place, mate, you're contradicting your arguments with each new post. What do you want to say?

 

I feel what to Izzy his carrer is just a hobby.

[DieselDaisy]

5 hours ago, Sosso said:

That would mean that Buckethead is much more successfull than Guns N' Roses right now, wouldn't it?

He is certainly a lot more interesting.