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

[DieselDaisy]

7 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?

 

You are wondering why two financially backed bands, a supergroup featuring three GN'R members and 'Guns N' Roses', are more successful than Izzy's solo career commercially, while ignoring the fact that Duff's solo career (including Loaded) and Slash's (including Snakepit/Conspirators) do not sell significantly more albums or tickets? 

If Duff and Izzy both booked tours tomorrow, would the former significantly outsell the latter. I do not believe so. They'd both be playing clubs/small-theatres. Slash at least plays theatres now, following his solo album; during the Snakepit era he also was playing clubs.

[EvanG]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

If Duff and Izzy both booked tours tomorrow, would the former significantly outsell the latter. I do not believe so. They'd both be playing clubs/small-theatres. Slash at least plays theatres now, following his solo album; during the Snakepit era he also was playing clubs.

I'm not sure about Duff and Izzy. But obviously Slash would sell a lot more records/tickets than Izzy, even during the second Snakepit era.

[default_]

LOL @ the "money means sucess" talk. Fuck off that shit. Any creative imput is way more a indicative of a sucessful musician than fuckin money. A musician that dont do music is just a parody, they shouldnt even exist. If this tour continues after this run this band will not be different than any Guns N' Roses cover band. I must say that even the covers get more interesting sometimes cause at least they try and shake songs on the set.

Shove the money up your fn ass and learn a thing or two with Izzy, a guy that knows what really matters to a musician. His albuns are crap you say? Boo fn hoo, I think they are amazing and I wouldnt trade any of them for another NITL.
 

Edited October 11, 2017 by default_

[Tonto]

56 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are wondering why two financially backed bands, a supergroup featuring three GN'R members and 'Guns N' Roses', are more successful than Izzy's solo career commercially, while ignoring the fact that Duff's solo career (including Loaded) and Slash's (including Snakepit/Conspirators) do not sell significantly more albums or tickets? 

If Duff and Izzy both booked tours tomorrow, would the former significantly outsell the latter. I do not believe so. They'd both be playing clubs/small-theatres. Slash at least plays theatres now, following his solo album; during the Snakepit era he also was playing clubs.

You are just creating your own discussion now... who was comparing solo acts to solo acts? 

Why do you keep going on about the snakepit era? Why not talk about the world on fire era? You're so fucking bias and you're all over the place in this thread.

It's a fact that Duff, Slash and Axl have had far more success than Izzy has since Guns. Izzy's career post guns amounts to not much more than a hobby.  Duff was in Neurotic Outsiders, Janes Addcition and a bunch more bands, he's also a bestselling author. Stop moving the goal posts all the time. 

[Tonto]

25 minutes ago, default_ said:

LOL @ the "money means sucess" talk. Fuck off that shit. Any creative imput is way more a indicative of a sucessful musician than fuckin money. A musician that dont do music is just a parody, they shouldnt even exist. If this tour continues after this run this band will not be different than any Guns N' Roses cover band. I must say that even the covers get more interesting sometimes cause at least they try and shake songs on the set.

Shove the money up your fn ass and learn a thing or two with Izzy, a guy that knows what really matters to a musician. His albuns are crap you say? Boo fn hoo, I think they are amazing and I wouldnt trade any of them for another NITL.
 

Shove who's money up my fn ass? What do I need to learn about Izzy? 

"A musician who doesn't do music is just a parody", what does that mean? All musicians "do music", you can't be a musician and not "do music", do you not understand what words mean?

How can Guns N Roses be a "cover band" for playing songs they wrote and performed? It's just not possible. You really do seem to have an issue understanding what words mean what and how and when to use them. Is that why you used "default" for your username? Could you not work one out?

No one is asking you to trade the Izzy songs you love so much, but maybe one day he will get off his ass and play them live for you... probably not, but you never know. I think it's pretty disrespectful to the fans to be honest. How long can you not play live music and continue to be a musician? Let us know @default_, it's a job for you and your word salad surprise.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Tonto

[DieselDaisy]

44 minutes ago, Tonto said:

You are just creating your own discussion now... who was comparing solo acts to solo acts? 

Why do you keep going on about the snakepit era? Why not talk about the world on fire era? You're so fucking bias and you're all over the place in this thread.

It's a fact that Duff, Slash and Axl have had far more success than Izzy has since Guns. Izzy's career post guns amounts to not much more than a hobby.  Duff was in Neurotic Outsiders, Janes Addcition and a bunch more bands, he's also a bestselling author. Stop moving the goal posts all the time. 

'World on Fire era'? How many copies did World on Fire sell? It sold 29,000 copies in its first week!! This hardly elevates Slash as a commercial solo act significantly above Izzy and his Itunes albums. Neurotic Outsiders is now out of print for crying out loud - how many units did that sell then? They played a bunch of clubs then departed. You are completely lying about the success of Slash and Duff individually here. I know you are lying as I followed the 1998-02 incarnation of Snakepit and there was nothing there in terms of economic clout, media exposure or commercial success. I loved that little band and it didn't bother me in the slightest as I do not get into bands because of their success but the reality of the situation was that Slash was barely more successful than Gilby Clarke.

Slash, Duff and Izzy (Gilby also) were all dropped - dropped - from their major label during the mid '90s corporate mergers!!

What is the only time any one of these Appetite/Illusion guys - eight members in toto - has had great commercial performances? Whenever there is an amalgam of them, and/or, they are operating under the 'Guns N' Roses' moniker.

(And even the former, I'd have some reservations as Libertad flopped and Rose found himself playing in casinos to housewives.)

[Tonto]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

'World on Fire era'? How many copies did World on Fire sell? It sold 29,000 copies in its first week!! This hardly elevates Slash as a commercial solo act significantly above Izzy and his Itunes albums. Neurotic Outsiders is now out of print for crying out loud - how many units did that sell then? They played a bunch of clubs then departed. You are completely lying about the success of Slash and Duff individually here. I know you are lying as I followed the 1998-02 incarnation of Snakepit and there was nothing there in terms of economic clout, media exposure or commercial success. I loved that little band and it didn't bother me in the slightest as I do not get into bands because of their success but the reality of the situation was that Slash was barely more successful than Gilby Clarke.

Slash, Duff and Izzy (Gilby also) were all dropped - dropped - from their major label during the mid '90s corporate mergers!!

What is the only time any one of these Appetite/Illusion guys - eight members in toto - has had great commercial performances? Whenever there is an amalgam of them, and/or, they are operating under the 'Guns N' Roses' moniker.

(And even the former, I'd have some reservations as Libertad flopped and Rose found himself playing in casinos to housewives.)

Man you really are annoying, you keep flip flopping from one topic to the next. I was responding to your quote about 300 people turning up to see Slash play live when I mentioned World on Fire, strangely you don't want to mention that era and keep sticking with your 300 people in the crowd from 20 years ago.

You are a witty guy on here but you really can't converse or debate worth a shit, you just keep changing everything as you go along. You start off by comparing a solo artist to a band, then complain that it's not fair to do that, you get a rebuttal regarding concert attendance then flip over to sales figures. What is going on with you? 

Edited October 11, 2017 by Tonto

[Nicklord]

Slash during the whole solo era is playing small arenas or big clubs around the world with being afternoon main stage act at festivals (3rd down). That's hardly bad. Slash's only bad commercially era was around second Snakepit album, that's 2-3 bad years. He was in a great place first 15 and last 15 years of his career, had bad period but that's not "fluctuating success". Fluctuating means going back and forth constantly and this happened only once

[ZoSoRose]

 

[Tonto]

16 minutes ago, Nicklord said:

Slash during the whole solo era is playing small arenas or big clubs around the world with being afternoon main stage act at festivals (3rd down). That's hardly bad. Slash's only bad commercially era was around second Snakepit album, that's 2-3 bad years. He was in a great place first 15 and last 15 years of his career, had bad period but that's not "fluctuating success". Fluctuating means going back and forth constantly and this happened only once

This is all true, he's done very well on his own the last 15 years and did very well with VR, for @DieselDaisyto make out he's only slightly more successful than Gibly Clarke is ridiculous and I'm sure he knows it too. 

[DieselDaisy]

23 minutes ago, Tonto said:

Man you really are annoying, you keep flip flopping from one topic to the next. I was responding to your quote about 300 people turning up to see Slash play live when I mentioned World on Fire, strangely you don't want to mention that era and keep sticking with your 300 people in the crowd from 20 years ago.

You are a witty guy on here but you really can't converse or debate worth a shit, you just keep changing everything as you go along. You start of by comparing a solo artist to a band, then complain that it's not fair to do that, you get a rebuttal regarding concert attendance then flip over to sales figures. What is going on with you? 

Crying about it is certainly not going to improve your arguments.

 

[Tonto]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Crying about it is certainly not going to improve your arguments.

 

It's not tears in my eyes, I'm just worn out, you exhaust me.

It's very difficult to have a discussion with someone who reverses his stance every other post. Exhausting and ultimately pointless, but that joke is on me.

[RONIN]

2 hours ago, Nicklord said:

Slash during the whole solo era is playing small arenas or big clubs around the world with being afternoon main stage act at festivals (3rd down). That's hardly bad. Slash's only bad commercially era was around second Snakepit album, that's 2-3 bad years. He was in a great place first 15 and last 15 years of his career, had bad period but that's not "fluctuating success". Fluctuating means going back and forth constantly and this happened only once

He was in a major slump from around the time he left GNR all the way up to VR. I think he sort of even addresses this in his book. 

That second snakepit album tanked hard and at that time, it looked like the ex-gunners were down for the count - Axl definitely had the upper hand and a higher profile when New Guns debuted in Rio back in '01. At that time I thought Axl had made the right move trading up Slash for Buckethead. Slash felt very 90's and dated to my silly early 20's self.

One of the shrewdest moves Slash ever made was getting Scott Weiland as his frontman. That gave VR the jumpstart it needed to go mainstream. The solo album where he sings with different singers on each track was also a very savvy move on his part. 

[DieselDaisy]

They all, all except Rose, got dropped from their major labels in the late '90s - that is how well they're all doing commercially! The idea that Neurotic Outsiders, Snakepit #2 and Loaded were significantly more successful than Stradlin is quite frankly ludicrous.

 

[soon]

2 hours ago, Nicklord said:

Slash during the whole solo era is playing small arenas or big clubs around the world with being afternoon main stage act at festivals (3rd down). That's hardly bad. Slash's only bad commercially era was around second Snakepit album, that's 2-3 bad years. He was in a great place first 15 and last 15 years of his career, had bad period but that's not "fluctuating success". Fluctuating means going back and forth constantly and this happened only once

I agree with part I bolded but would include mention of Slashs Blues Ball as the absolute bottom.  That was between two Snakepit albums.  

[RONIN]

13 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

They all, all except Rose, got dropped from their major labels in the late '90s - that is how well they're all doing commercially! The idea that Neurotic Outsiders, Snakepit #2 and Loaded were significantly more successful than Stradlin is quite frankly ludicrous.

 

Stradlin went with an indie label after his first two solo albums right? In his case, I don't even think he liked being with a major label probably because he didn't want the obligation of interviews, touring and all the other crap that comes with major label support.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, RONIN said:

Stradlin went with an indie label after his first two solo albums right? In his case, I don't even think he liked being with a major label probably because he didn't want the obligation of interviews, touring and all the other crap that comes with major label support.

He put out two albums in Japan (Ride On; On Down the Road) and one on an English label (River) before commencing with the internet albums with Like A Dog.

[Tonto]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

They all, all except Rose, got dropped from their major labels in the late '90s - that is how well they're all doing commercially! The idea that Neurotic Outsiders, Snakepit #2 and Loaded were significantly more successful than Stradlin is quite frankly ludicrous.

 

What's ludicrous is your flip flopping between your definitions of success. Which way you swinging this hour?

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Tonto said:

What's ludicrous is your flip flopping between your definitions of success. Which way you swinging this hour?

You seem to take this all a bit personally?

[Tonto]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

You seem to take this all a bit personally?

And no one in this thread ever posted that "Neurotic Outsiders, Snakepit #2 and Loaded were significantly more successful than Stradlin". More straw man arguments, you're just picking the points you think you can argue. I certainly never pitted any one of those albums against another, you seem to have a serious reading compression problem.

[Tonto]

@DieselDaisy You want to compare solo albums, right? You keep banging on about sales (even though you said it wasn't important, so let's go). 

Slash's first solo album outsold Izzy's. Duff's first solo album outsold Izzy's. Axl's solo album (as you like to call it) outsold Izzy's.

That's not to mention all of the other projects they had post guns. They have had far more successful careers than Izzy, it's just a fact.

Why do you want to keep pitting their worst selling albums against Izzy's best selling album? You are so transparent. 

Slash is a multiplatinum solo artist, he’s had number 1’s all over the world with his solo records and you still have the temerity to sit there and claim that he’s hardly done any better than Izzy in all of these years. Absolute nonsense. 

Edited October 12, 2017 by Tonto

[DieselDaisy]

21 minutes ago, Tonto said:

@DieselDaisy You want to compare solo albums, right? You keep banging on about sales (even though you said it wasn't important, so let's go). 

Slash's first solo album outsold Izzy's. Duff's first solo album outsold Izzy's. Axl's solo album (as you like to call it) outsold Izzy's.

That's not to mention all of the other projects they had post guns. They have had far more successful careers than Izzy, it's just a fact.

Why do you want to keep pitting their worst selling albums against Izzy's best selling album? You are so transparent. 

Slash is a multiplatinum solo artist, he’s had number 1’s all over the world with his solo records and you still have the temerity to sit there and claim that he’s hardly done any better than Izzy in all of these years. Absolute nonsense. 

Stats? And do not quote that stuff about ''It's five o' clock going platinum'' as the only place anyone has seen that stat in Slash's book. 

Relax. If you want to believe that Slash and Duff were not dropped from their record companies, that Duff found someone to put out his sophomore, that Slash's second album sold more than the ten copies it actually did upon some obscure German label, then you are entitled to believe this stuff? Slash's Snakepit were playing stadia in 2001? Of course they were!

 

[ludurigan]

5 hours ago, RONIN said:

Slash felt very 90's and dated to my silly early 20's self

you should have listened to this man and maybe you would have never thought something like that

[Tonto]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Stats? And do not quote that stuff about ''It's five o' clock going platinum'' as the only place anyone has seen that stat in Slash's book. 

Relax. If you want to believe that Slash and Duff were not dropped from their record companies, that Duff found someone to put out his sophomore, that Slash's second album sold more than the ten copies it actually did upon some obscure German label, then you are entitled to believe this stuff? Slash's Snakepit were playing stadia in 2001? Of course they were!

 

It's certified platinum, it sold more than a million copies worldwide. Are all the chart positions for his solo records, the numerous number 1's BS too?

Why would I want to believe that Slash and Duff were not dropped by their record companies when I know that they were? When did I say Slash's Snakepit were playing stadia in 2001? Hello straw man, back again? Will Aunt Sally be joining us for some tea? We can discuss your favourite years, 93-2001, the only years that seem to exist in your mind.

Edited October 12, 2017 by Tonto

[ludurigan]

2 hours ago, Tonto said:

@DieselDaisy You want to compare solo albums, right? You keep banging on about sales (even though you said it wasn't important, so let's go). 

Slash's first solo album outsold Izzy's. Duff's first solo album outsold Izzy's. Axl's solo album (as you like to call it) outsold Izzy's.

That's not to mention all of the other projects they had post guns. They have had far more successful careers than Izzy, it's just a fact.

Why do you want to keep pitting their worst selling albums against Izzy's best selling album? You are so transparent. 

Slash is a multiplatinum solo artist, he’s had number 1’s all over the world with his solo records and you still have the temerity to sit there and claim that he’s hardly done any better than Izzy in all of these years. Absolute nonsense. 

 

the only thing that is better than outsolding izzy is saying that izzy is a stones and REM ripoff

SURE HE IS

THERE IS ZERO DOUBT ABOUT THAT

ISNT THERE ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF IT

IZZY IS A STONES AND REM RIPOFF AND THATS A FACT