Jump to content

One thing GNR have taught me is skeptisim...


Recommended Posts

I joined this forum ten months ago all enthused about this band that I had come across on Youtube.  I found a group of frustrated people skeptical about the band and the lack of music.  I tried to be all positive looking for the best in the band dismissing the idea that the reunion was a cash grab.  Well ten months later I have become a mamber of the frustrated group due to lack of music , lack of communication and a touring band, who were once so great, now no more at there best and doing the same thing over and over with obviously no excitement at what they are doing.  Maybe it was different when they first got together in 2016 but I was not around.  I dont blame them, I dont know what they have been through, especially Axl, that has changed their attitudes so much.  As an aside  I was watching an intervew with Sting and he said when he was able to afford a big car he realised that it was his fans that had allowed him to do this...

I ask myself what is it I am a fan of with GnR and it is the 86-93 era but this is alright, initially I was hoping for more current output, but it is the way it is.  They were extrordinary back then I just wish I could find a rock band of today that  brought such dynamism and charisma.  A cliche but they were truly one in a million

Can anyone relate to this and if so when did the cynicism begin?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can relate, but look – don’t give up hope. Imagine if you joined the fandom in 2006. Or 2010. Or 2016. The experience would have been completely different. This band truly is unique, can’t be compared to any other interpret, and it seems that nothing is normal about them. They have these lame seasons of just muteness or staleness, but every time one would feel like giving up, something unexpected – or at least way better – happens, and things get back on track again. Same with Axl’s voice: every time we thought “this time he’s completely screwed and it’s over” (2002, 2011–14…), a new period came, and he showed us that he still can nail it. 
I sometimes (well, quite often, recently) bitch here, but that’s the nature of the things these days, as nothing happens and their PR team sucks eggs. And this is the right place to do so anyway. However, I never give up.
As for your question, I’ve begun to grow weary and suspicious in 2018. Up until then, the concert schedule had been logical, and songs had been being shuffled around, at least in 2016. But the whole 2018 summer tour and anything from then on was just superfluous protraction, and with the stale playlist, Axl’s gravely deteriorating form, and no news about anything, people got tired; and the two new deep cuts couldn’t have saved it. What helped was the box set, the two video bootlegs, and the Village leaks. If it wasn’t for that…
Anyway, let’s not lose hope. I’ve said it here before: there used to be periods when absolutely nothing happened publicly for years and nobody knew shit – like 2003 to 2005. So compared with that, this is nothing; we’re just too close to it, therefore we can’t see it. 
To better days! 

Edited by jamillos
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of us started to figure shit out in 2017, in my case it was the "AFD anniversary show" aka the Apollo show. It was cool that they streamed it but A) they were promoting is as something different (most of us were expecting SOMETHING.. Izzy? Steven? An all AFD setlist maybe?) and it was just a regular show like all the others B) Axl sounded like shit C) the fucking AFD box came a whole year later than that. That's when I figured out that this reunion is nothing more than a cashgrab. Rock In Rio 2017 was definitely another moment (for me that's GNR's worst show ever, literally).  And Berlin 2018 was the ice of the cake, that's the moment where basically the 99% of this forum were done with defending or finding excuses for the band.

2016 was a great year, personally it was my best year as a GNR fan. I loved nuGNR (I was too young for 2001-2006 era) but 2016 was exciting in every way. Everyone was talking about GNR, stadiums were packed, Axl was sounding amazing and the band seemed to be having fun. That's something I don't since since (being generous), 2018. Slash specially, today looks totally bored onstage from my perspective. It was a great year, I was really happy for Axl. He really changed that image everyone has of him, specially when he fronted AC/DC too.

Edited by GNRfanMILO
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't relate at all. I have been following them since the early 90's and I am not skeptical or frustrated at all. I want new music as much as the next guy, but if it won't happen I won't lose any sleep over it. It is what it is.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Been reading (well listening to the audiobook) of Duff McKagans autobiography and one thing that struck me is that the whole GnR band of brothers thing is a bunch of horseshit.  They met in, what, 84, 85, famous by 87 and the minute they got famous and there was something to test the brotherhood aspect (i.e. there was some money involved) they started arguing and having all kindsa issues with each other.  And by the 90s they kinda existed seperately, the whole band of brothers stuff was a load of bollocks.  Basically as soon as some money was involved and they saw what each other was really like it was the beginning of the end.

Yep.

Also bullshit is them as homeless people and a gang.

Axl once stayed at Slashs families house. And apparently so did David fucking Bowie. Not quite a box down by the ocean is it?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DurhamGirl said:

I joined this forum ten months ago all enthused about this band that I had come across on Youtube.  I found a group of frustrated people skeptical about the band and the lack of music.  I tried to be all positive looking for the best in the band dismissing the idea that the reunion was a cash grab.  Well ten months later I have become a mamber of the frustrated group due to lack of music , lack of communication and a touring band, who were once so great, now no more at there best and doing the same thing over and over with obviously no excitement at what they are doing.  Maybe it was different when they first got together in 2016 but I was not around.  I dont blame them, I dont know what they have been through, especially Axl, that has changed their attitudes so much.  As an aside  I was watching an intervew with Sting and he said when he was able to afford a big car he realised that it was his fans that had allowed him to do this...

I ask myself what is it I am a fan of with GnR and it is the 86-93 era but this is alright, initially I was hoping for more current output, but it is the way it is.  They were extrordinary back then I just wish I could find a rock band of today that  brought such dynamism and charisma.  A cliche but they were truly one in a million

Can anyone relate to this and if so when did the cynicism begin?

Im skeptical about all intersections of art and commerce. And I'm skeptical of all big capitalism. Guns is a great example of why.

I see Guns as being a poorly conceived, and even more poorly executed, heist from day one.

And Im happy to be a fan :lol:

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Been reading (well listening to the audiobook) of Duff McKagans autobiography and one thing that struck me is that the whole GnR band of brothers thing is a bunch of horseshit.  They met in, what, 84, 85, famous by 87 and the minute they got famous and there was something to test the brotherhood aspect (i.e. there was some money involved) they started arguing and having all kindsa issues with each other.  And by the 90s they kinda existed seperately, the whole band of brothers stuff was a load of bollocks.  Basically as soon as some money was involved and they saw what each other was really like it was the beginning of the end.

Yeah, that kind of thing has been true for most bands. For the most part they simply tolerate each other for the good of the band. The one band that has always fascinated me in that aspect is U2. They've kept the same members and they seem to genuinely like each other for the most part. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, lame ass security said:

Yeah, that kind of thing has been true for most bands. For the most part they simply tolerate each other for the good of the band. The one band that has always fascinated me in that aspect is U2. They've kept the same members and they seem to genuinely like each other for the most part. 

But i mean with other bands you actually see some kinda brotherhood, bands like The Beatles, The Clash, The Stones to a point, they actually had some serious bond, looked out for each other, had each others back, Duff goes on a lot about the band of brothers thing but there’s almost no actual evidence of them ever being like that.  I mean it was right after Appetite went big that they kinda like...started sniping at each other, over artistic rights (which amounts to money really).  They were never even really in the studio together for a concerted period of time ever like all other great bands are/were.  They were kinda fated to fail and like, really, you get the impression that they only really stayed together post Appetite because there was so much money in it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lame ass security said:

Yeah, that kind of thing has been true for most bands. For the most part they simply tolerate each other for the good of the band. The one band that has always fascinated me in that aspect is U2. They've kept the same members and they seem to genuinely like each other for the most part. 

I was watching some docu on R.E.M. the other day and those guys are still friends and hang out together even though they ended the band years ago. There never seemed to be any bad blood between those guys in the thirty years that they were together.

36 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

you get the impression that they only really stayed together post Appetite because there was so much money in it.

I think they kept it together because they knew they had a good thing together musically speaking. A chemistry that you don't find easily. I don't think money was ever as much of a reason like a lot of people seem to think. But then again, I don't think money was the main reason for them to do the reunion either, but I guess I'm in the minority with that opinion as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EvanG said:

I was watching some docu on R.E.M. the other day and those guys are still friends and hang out together even though they ended the band years ago. There never seemed to be any bad blood between those guys in the thirty years that they were together.

I think they kept it together because they knew they had a good thing together musically speaking. A chemistry that you don't find easily. I don't think money was ever as much of a reason like a lot of people seem to think. But then again, I don't think money was the main reason for them to do the reunion either, but I guess I'm in the minority with that opinion as well.

I don’t agree, if only because, in real terms, they weren’t actually putting any music out, so what does the alleged ‘chemistry’ amount to?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

But i mean with other bands you actually see some kinda brotherhood, bands like The Beatles, The Clash, The Stones to a point, they actually had some serious bond, looked out for each other, had each others back, Duff goes on a lot about the band of brothers thing but there’s almost no actual evidence of them ever being like that.  I mean it was right after Appetite went big that they kinda like...started sniping at each other, over artistic rights (which amounts to money really).  They were never even really in the studio together for a concerted period of time ever like all other great bands are/were.  They were kinda fated to fail and like, really, you get the impression that they only really stayed together post Appetite because there was so much money in it.

I agree with this to a point.

Alot of those bands during their formative year recorded together not only because of a brotherhood but the technology wasnt there to allow them to record at home or in 2 separate studios. Plus when the record companies paying for the studio time, bands obviously respected that, hence writing and recording together. Do you think mccartney wouldnt have said no to recording at home or in another studio if it meant not having to see yoko everyday?

By 1970 the band was done, as they started the beatles young and grew to being older men, and just went through their own inner emotional maturity changes. But that didnt stop them before the beatles broke up of sniping at each other all in the same studio and creating certain lyrics about one another!. If the technology developed more, and the beatles band stayed in tact, i think they certainly would not have recorded together.

But with this the 60s and 70s bands respected each individual member and what they brought to the band. 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I don’t agree, if only because, in real terms, they weren’t actually putting any music out, so what does the alleged ‘chemistry’ amount to?

Three great albums and great shows. But then their personalities and egos got in the way and they blew it. 

I don't know, you very well could be right, maybe I'm naive, but I always thought they had musical integrity. For example Axl... if he was all about the money, why did he blow so much money by starting most shows late? Or why didn't he release and tour a lot more throughout his career? Or why didn't he promote CD when it finally came out? All of that doesn't make any sense if he was driven by money because he could have made so much more if he had handled things differently.

Edited by EvanG
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Three great albums and great shows. But then their personalities and egos got in the way and they blew it. 

I don't know, you very well could be right, maybe I'm naive, but I always thought they had musical integrity. For example Axl... if he was all about the money, why did he blow so much money by starting most shows late? Or why didn't he release and tour a lot more throughout his career? Or why didn't he promote CD when it finally came out? All of that doesn't make any sense if he was driven by money because he could have made so much more if he had handled things differently.

Because, as well as being money hungry, he’s also got the personality of the cunt.  Being greedy and being business savvy (or indeed right in the head) are not the same thing.  The things you pointed out require greed and discipline and integrity, I was only noting or highlighting greed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Because, as well as being money hungry, he’s also got the personality of the cunt.  Being greedy and being business savvy (or indeed right in the head) are not the same thing.  The things you pointed out require greed and discipline and integrity, I was only noting or highlighting greed.

So far I haven't seen a single valid argument as to why they are greedy, except for all the stupid merchandise that they've been releasing since a couple of years.

How being ''money hungry'' and ''greedy'' goes hand in hand with losing so much money on a tour that should be very profitable, is something that still hasn't been explained to me. Same goes for the other arguments I mentioned. You don't have to be savy to understand you're pissing away money with those antics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, EvanG said:

So far I haven't seen a single valid argument as to why they are greedy, except for all the stupid merchandise that they've been releasing since a couple of years.

How being ''money hungry'' and ''greedy'' goes hand in hand with losing so much money on a tour that should be very profitable, is something that still hasn't been explained to me. Same goes for the other arguments I mentioned. You don't have to be savy to understand you're pissing away money with those antics.

The fact that the minute there was money involved, i.e. Appetite was being made they started to bicker over who wrote what and how much each should get out of what.  And its not even like there was big big money rolling in at that point, its kinda more the point where it looked like their might be big big money rolling in soon.  Believe it or not a great many bands just split things even, regardless, PiL certainly do, for example.  Another example would be Axl getting Duff and Slash to sign the name over, now I wonder why he did that shit?  Greed not a plausible explanation there, no? 

As far as an explanation of why they lost money, well because they were cunts.  Arrogant cunts.  Junkie cunts.  Self serving cunts.  They clearly couldn't stand each other from like, OK, after Lies onwards...but they kept it together, why?  What, musical chemistry?  Do me a favour, they were barely in the studio together after that, Izzy posted his shit, Axl barely showed up, it was all just them piecing shit together from what I can tell.  And why not release more?  Well, perhaps because the music is fuckin' shite and its better to preserve what you have with 3 good releases (Appetite, Lies, Illusions) than fuck shit up by putting out stuff that was sub-standard? 

And I don't see no integrity, what, integrity like showing up hours late and causing riots?  Remember, these are people who have had (though through no fault of their own) people die at their gigs, you'd think they'd maybe be a little sensitive about the possible repercussions of having a bunch of angry people going apeshit in an ampitheatre.  Integrity like stiffing your mates out of the band name, integrity like hiring managers that serve individual interests instead of those of the band as a unit, integrity as in deciding you can't be bothered to do a show today because, well, you just can't be bothered.  And this is just me talking about the old days, there's plenty they do now that can be cited as greedy, though I won't get into that and I don't really begrudge them that either, we're talking about pension fund stuff now, I don't think they're really a functioning creative entity right now, I'm talking about Guns n Roses, which is like from their inception until Argentina 93, if I were to get into nowadays you could write a book on money hungry and greedy. 

Edited by Len Cnut
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

The fact that the minute there was money involved, i.e. Appetite was being made they started to bicker over who wrote what and how much each should get out of what.  Believe it or not a great many bands just split things even, regardless, PiL certainly do, for example.  Another example would be Axl getting Duff and Slash to sign the name over, now I wonder why he did that shit?  Greed not a plausible explanation there, no? 

Could be, but that could just as easily be because of egos. I've played in bands half of my life and we've had the exact same discussions about songwriting credits and believe me, it wasn't because of money because we didn't make a dime. As to why sign the name over, that has been explained many times, but you're so cynical in regards to this, you're not going to buy it anyway, and that's fine, so let's leave it at that.

6 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

What, musical chemistry?  Do me a favour, they were barely in the studio together after that, Izzy posted his shit, Axl barely showed up, it was all just them piecing shit together from what I can tell.  And why not release more?  Well, perhaps because the music is fuckin' shite and its better to preserve what you have with 3 good releases (Appetite, Lies, Illusions) than fuck shit up by putting out stuff that was sub-standard? 

You're going to tell me they had no musical chemistry? I believe that they only came together once or twice before recording UYI and in that time they figured out most of the songs, that's apparently how well they got on on a musical level. And that's what I'm talking about, not about their personal relationships.

9 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

And I don't see no integrity, what, integrity like showing up hours late and causing riots?  Remember, these are people who have had (though through no fault of their own) people die at their gigs, you'd think they'd maybe be a little sensitive about the possible repercussions of having a bunch of angry people going apeshit in an ampitheatre. 

I said musical integrity. And maybe that's not even the right phrase for it. From what I've read, Axl was late because he only wanted to go on stage when he felt ready to give it 100%, and if that meant showing up two hours late, then that's how it was. He didn't see it as a job where he could punch in at whatever time he was expected to be there. Stupid? Idiotic? Irresponsible? Yes, all of that. But that doesn't really connect with the greedy and money hungry person you seem to make him out to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Could be, but that could just as easily be because of egos. I've played in bands half of my life and we've had the exact same discussions about songwriting credits and believe me, it wasn't because of money because we didn't make a dime. As to why sign the name over, that has been explained many times, but you're so cynical in regards to this, you're not going to buy it anyway, and that's fine, so let's leave it at that.

It just so happens that its profitable every time, must be my cynicism :lol:

Quote

You're going to tell me they had no musical chemistry? I believe that they only came together once or twice before recording UYI and in that time they figured out most of the songs, that's apparently how well they got on on a musical level. And that's what I'm talking about, not about their personal relationships.

Not at all, I just don't think that what musical chemistry (and they definitely had it) they had, when stacked up against all the fuckeries that were going on, was enough reason for the rest of the band to not walk out on Axl.  Izzy Stradlin, now there's integrity, didn't like what he saw, didn't want to have that shit going on under his watch, wanted to clean up so he left.  And didn't leave em in the lurch either, saw through a few shows if I'm not mistaken, a few shows that they were obligated to do?  That my dear, is integrity. 

Quote

I said musical integrity. And maybe that's not even the right phrase for it. From what I've read, Axl was late because he only wanted to go on stage when he felt ready to give it 100%, and if that meant showing up two hours late, then that's how it was. He didn't see it as a job where he could punch in at whatever time he was expected to be there. Stupid? Idiotic? Irresponsible? Yes, all of that. But that doesn't really connect with the greedy and money hungry person you seem to make him out to be.

He couldn't start getting ready a couple of hours in advance, no?  What about the days he just didn't show, what was happening then?  Couldn't sort his chakras out?  I remembering hearing one time he was watching a basketball game :lol:  Basically what you're saying amounts to he couldn't really do the job. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

It just so happens that its profitable every time, must be my cynicism :lol:

But there are so many other options, you, and a lot of people on here, immediately assume that it's all about the money. Again, maybe I'm just really naive, but I haven't seen enough evidence that money was ever the main motivation. I'm not saying they don't care at all about it, but I don't think that has ever been the motivation.

Quote

when stacked up against all the fuckeries that were going on, was enough reason for the rest of the band to not walk out on Axl.  Izzy Stradlin, now there's integrity, didn't like what he saw, didn't want to have that shit going on under his watch, wanted to clean up so he left. 

This is where we differ. I really believe that they kept it going for the sake of music and because they had a good thing together musically speaking. As for Stradlin, Mr. Wonderboy who can do no wrong around here, he was more money concerned than what everyone believes. Didn't he go back to GnR in 1993 just for the money? Didn't he not do the reunion because of the money? Read a few interviews with him, he often mentions the damn money. 

Quote

He couldn't start getting ready a couple of hours in advance, no?  What about the days he just didn't show, what was happening then?  Couldn't sort his chakras out?  I remembering hearing one time he was watching a basketball game :lol:  Basically what you're saying amounts to he couldn't really do the job. 

Yeah, he's a fruitcase, he's eccentric, he'll probably tell you that you can't put a clock on being an artist or being ready to make art, or something like that. But however weird that may sound, it shows that he's more concerned with being an artist than being greedy or money hungry, because he lost a lot of money this way.   

Edited by EvanG
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But there are so many other options, you, and a lot of people on here, immediately assume that it's all about the money. Again, maybe I'm just really naive, but I haven't seen enough evidence that money was ever the main motivation. I'm not saying they don't care at all about it, but I don't think that has ever been the motivation.

Fair enough :lol:

Quote

This is where we differ. I really believe that they kept it going for the sake of music and because they had a good thing together musically speaking.

What music, they didn't make any...or in fact play much.

Quote

As for Stradlin, Mr. Wonderboy who can do no wrong around here, he was more money concerned than what everyone believes. Didn't he go back to GnR in 1993 just for the money? Didn't he not do the reunion because of the money? Read a few interviews with him, he often mentions the damn money. 

I was never saying money shouldn't be a concern or people shouldn't be paid when they play, I just don't think anyone with an once of self esteem would care to be Axls monkey boy, sign over the rights of the band and put up with his girlish hysterical behaviour, which Izzy didn't.  Come to that I don't even really hold it against the rest of the band for being, whether they were or not, greedy.  I'm just pointing it out as an apparent fact.

Quote

Yeah, he's a fruitcase, he's eccentric, he'll probably tell you that you can't put a clock on being an artist or being ready to make art, or something like that.

No ones asking him to make art, just sing those already recorded and well practised songs.

Quote

But however weird that may sound, it shows that he's more concerned with being an artist than being greedy or money hungry, because he lost a lot of money this way.

Well he's not an artist, he's the singer in a rock band.  A late 80s, highly derivative popular rock band who, once upon a time, people liked to hear sing.  Lets not lay it on like this is Beethoven agonizing over symphonies whilst slowly going death.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

What music, they didn't make any...or in fact play much.

Well, I'm talking about the same era as you are, they released what...  close to 50 original songs in between '87-'93?

Quote

No ones asking him to make art, just sing those already recorded and well practised songs. / Well he's not an artist, he's the singer in a rock band.  A late 80s, highly derivative popular rock band who, once upon a time, people liked to hear sing.  Lets not lay it on like this is Beethoven agonizing over symphonies whilst slowly going death.

I know you don't consider music, or at least rock/pop music, as art, but I do, so I guess we differ in that too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well, I'm talking about the same era as you are, they released what...  close to 50 original songs in between '87-'93?

Well you can knock Appetite out of that equation for a start because the beef began after that was recorded.

Quote

I know you don't consider music, or at least rock/pop music, as art, but I do, so I guess we differ in that too.

OK, well, it would be nice if these 'artists' making these three chord pieces of genius that requires decades of slaving over could maybe get a little bit of a move on?  Y'know, like make some of it, put it out?  I know, I know, you can't rush genius, I guess we'll have to sit around a few more decades waiting to see what earth shattering gems Wolfgang Amadeus Rose is cooking up in the lab. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Well you can knock Appetite out of that equation for a start because the beef began after that was recorded.

OK, well, it would be nice if these 'artists' making these three chord pieces of genius that requires decades of slaving over could maybe get a little bit of a move on?  Y'know, like make some of it, put it out?  I know, I know, you can't rush genius, I guess we'll have to sit around a few more decades waiting to see what earth shattering gems Wolfgang Amadeus Rose is cooking up in the lab. 

Now we're back to complaining about the lack of new music, I can't argue against that. Nor has that anything to do with what we were talking about.

Why do you consider making a painting art but not writing a song?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...