5 Years of reunion

[moreblack]

26 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

Yeah. You're right. Way better to come on here every fucking day and complain over something you can't change and no matter how much you complain no one in the band ever will give a shit about what yout think.

Some folks have nothing else.

[Nintari]

When I first heard of it, the only reason I got excited was because I thought we'd get a new record (Izzy, at that point, was expected to return as well). I bought tickets, saw them in 2016 and then...

*insert the sound of the cold breeze at the end of TIL*

For me, it's now basically like it was between 1993-2016. I live my life, occasionally listen to GNR and sometimes think, what if?

Edited April 6, 2021 by Nintari

[MaskingApathy]

On 4/3/2021 at 6:28 PM, DaneisKing1389 said:

These lazy tours give Slash enough money to tour his own material in 800 seat casinos in his spare time,

He plays venues much bigger than that.

 

On 4/2/2021 at 5:48 PM, Tom-Ass said:

The most exciting part was all the mystery leading up to the first show.. Then as soon as it happened it was apparent that Axl still looked and sounded like crap.. They still had the extra Synth player and she was even more ridiculous than Pitman.. maybe... There was no Izzy Adler or even Gilby or Matt.. It was very deflating.. I wanted to sell my tickets to the Vegas show..

I ended up having a great time at the Vegas show but it was apparent that it was never going to be as good as it could or should have been.. I passed on Cincinnati tickets (like an asshole) because they weren't good enough for me to travel for again but kept my Foxboro tix.. That Foxboro show ended up being waaay better than the Vegas show (performance wise). That was probably the highlight of the whole thing for me.. That first leg of the tour definitely had its moments but it all went downhill after that..

The last show I saw in 2017 was my least favorite of the 6 Gn'R shows I have seen in my life. They played like 5 CD songs that night too.. 

The band never got any tighter.. Axl continues to get worse. They release these terrible selects rather than anything from the classic era.. Just one blunder after another. The whole thing kind of makes me look at Slash and Duff in a different way too, which sucks.. Those are two guys I have really admired since I was like 13 years old in 1987.

I am glad it happened but could care less if it ended tomorrow.. I actually kind of wished it ended in 2017.... I know most people are bummed that there has been no new music, but I can say I couldn't care one way or the other.  Not with this lineup and the way Axl sounds.. 

I still come here a couple times a week hoping something good will happen and it never does.. The bar is set pretty low too... At this point I just want them to release shit from the classic era.  Fuck, just polish up some old bootleg footage and release it on youtube or something..  So many missed opportunities...

 

On 4/3/2021 at 6:12 AM, F*ck Fear said:

However,  he sounded pretty shit at the Troub, from the clips I heard.

 

On 4/4/2021 at 5:23 AM, allwaystired said:

What really hits me is what's happened in the last five years. People have gone from massive excitement to absolute indifference in that space of time. 

That's genuinely sad when you think about it. To go from people DESPERATE to see them play live to not even interested when they visit their city is awful. I really hate that that has happened, when there was absolutely no need for it to be the case.  

That's the main take away of the last five years for me. 

I agree with all of this. So much has changed (for the worse) in a short period of time.

[SoulMonster]

10 hours ago, PatrickS77 said:

Right. As if there would be new music if they weren't back. It's more like, if not even Slash and Duff can get Axl to release new music, then what will? And don't tell me me, money.

I don't think any single person or persons can get Axl do release music he is not happy with. This idea that Slash and Duff can somehow make Axl release music -- whether it is by arguing with him in ways no one else can or appeal to him as bandmates or through magic -- is weird to me and seems to disagree with what we know from how the band functioned in the 90s. Slash and Duff were quite impotent in making Axl do something he didn't want to, like hurry up recordings or arrive on stage on time. I am not saying Axl never listened to their input, he did, and some aspects of the band was really a group thing, like writing music, but as far as releasing that music and compromising on Axl's vision, nope. Many fans thought that with Slash and Duff rejoining the band things would be different, that the band would suddenly become like a true democracy again where they each had equal influence and power, but I think we have seen now that that is not the case. Axl is still Axl.

Axl obviously wants his band mates to have input on the music he wants to release. Axl didn't write the Chinese Democracy songs himself, that was a band effort. And when some band members left, Axl insisted on new band members recording new tracks to the songs. I assume this is Axl's way of making sure they all have some ownership to the music the play (not ownership in a legal sense, but artistic). The problem with this is of course that it takes a lot of time, and that the end result can be a bit muddy in terms of having too any layers and various players trying to fit their playing into existing songs. We saw this when Robin left the band and Richard later got to add his parts, when Brain re-recorded Josh's drum tracks note-by-note, when Bumble replaced some guitar tracks and tried to add new tracks to existing songs. This takes a lot of time and means that any release date is pushed back. This continuous process of replacing band members and having newcomers add their input to the songs, is one of the many reasons why it took so long to release Chinese Democracy.

Releasing the follow-up to Chinese Democracy with Slash and Duff in the band without the record featuring Slash and Duff, is probably a no-go for the record label and it is plausible that Slash and Duff would have contractual stipulations saying that any music released with them in the band should feature contributions from them. From this I assume that what has been happening lately is Duff and Slash adding their parts to CD2 songs. 

Back to the question: Would we have had music earlier if Slash and Duff didn't rejoin Guns N' Roses? I think that is a possibility. Maybe Axl realized that touring with yet another lineup featuring brand new band members would make less sense financially. Concert sales had been dwindling and the public would probably not be interested in yet another new lineup of unknowns. Maybe Axl considered two options, either releasing CD2 which was more or less finished (I believe) to boost interest in shows with whatever lineup, or get Slash and Duff back to do a massively anticipated and valuable "reunion tour". Unfortunately (for me), the latter was chosen and here we are.

Through all this I am NOT saying we are not getting new music. I am just leaning towards the possibility that we would have had new music sooner if the "reunion" hadn't happened. Maybe. Who knows?

[SoulMonster]

10 hours ago, Free Bird said:

As for GNR music? Well that's simple as mathematics. You have two guys who are releasing music on a regular basis and one guy who doesn't. Now if you subtract the two guys who are releasing music, from the guy who doesn't, then you still have the guy who doesn't release music. The result remains the same. 

Yes, pretty much. My point has always been that Slash and Duff don't hold a magical key that unlocks Axl's will to compromise on his vision. Something stronger is needed than Slash and Duff, like a label putting extreme pressure or financial difficulties, that leave Axl with little alternative. As I wrote in another post just now, I believe there is a possibility Axl might have considered releasing CD2 if the "reunion" hadn't taken place. He still probably wants to release it, but now it needs contributions from Slash and Duff and that's going to take time (not because Slash and Duff can't add some tracks in an afternoon, but because of the post-recording work that follows when Axl and his team starts mixing and tooling the new contributions onto the songs). In short, I believe we could have had new music earlier if it wasn't for Slash and Duff rejoining. Or maybe not. I really don't know, but I lean towards that conclusion. 

[jamillos]

44 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't think any single person or persons can get Axl do release music he is not happy with. This idea that Slash and Duff can somehow make Axl release music -- whether it is by arguing with him in ways no one else can or appeal to him as bandmates or through magic -- is weird to me and seems to disagree with what we know from how the band functioned in the 90s. Slash and Duff were quite impotent in making Axl do something he didn't want to, like hurry up recordings or arrive on stage on time. I am not saying Axl never listened to their input, he did, and some aspects of the band was really a group thing, like writing music, but as far as releasing that music and compromising on Axl's vision, nope. Many fans thought that with Slash and Duff rejoining the band things would be different, that the band would suddenly become like a true democracy again where they each had equal influence and power, but I think we have seen now that that is not the case. Axl is still Axl.

Axl obviously wants his band mates to have input on the music he wants to release. Axl didn't write the Chinese Democracy songs himself, that was a band effort. And when some band members left, Axl insisted on new band members recording new tracks to the songs. I assume this is Axl's way of making sure they all have some ownership to the music the play (not ownership in a legal sense, but artistic). The problem with this is of course that it takes a lot of time, and that the end result can be a bit muddy in terms of having too any layers and various players trying to fit their playing into existing songs. We saw this when Robin left the band and Richard later got to add his parts, when Brain re-recorded Josh's drum tracks note-by-note, when Bumble replaced some guitar tracks and tried to add new tracks to existing songs. This takes a lot of time and means that any release date is pushed back. This continuous process of replacing band members and having newcomers add their input to the songs, is one of the many reasons why it took so long to release Chinese Democracy.

Releasing the follow-up to Chinese Democracy with Slash and Duff in the band without the record featuring Slash and Duff, is probably a no-go for the record label and it is plausible that Slash and Duff would have contractual stipulations saying that any music released with them in the band should feature contributions from them. From this I assume that what has been happening lately is Duff and Slash adding their parts to CD2 songs. 

Back to the question: Would we have had music earlier if Slash and Duff didn't rejoin Guns N' Roses? I think that is a possibility. Maybe Axl realized that touring with yet another lineup featuring brand new band members would make less sense financially. Concert sales had been dwindling and the public would probably not be interested in yet another new lineup of unknowns. Maybe Axl considered two options, either releasing CD2 which was more or less finished (I believe) to boost interest in shows with whatever lineup, or get Slash and Duff back to do a massively anticipated and valuable "reunion tour". Unfortunately (for me), the latter was chosen and here we are.

Through all this I am NOT saying we are not getting new music. I am just leaning towards the possibility that we would have had new music sooner if the "reunion" hadn't happened. Maybe. Who knows?

I don’t think it’s about literal making him release music he wouldn’t be content with. It’s more about the distribution of power/influence in the band. Slash’s opinion really can affect Axl more than that of anyone else in the past (which also includes speeding things up). Not to mention that the preceding (hired) gunners often may not have even dared tell him anything or make any kind of pressure. Slash can do that; he knows he won’t get fired, and since Axl started sounding the way he has since 2017/18, Slash has been the one actually carrying the biggest show on his shoulders. His position is way stronger these days than it ever was in the old days. GN'R would be over if Slash left again, and I think they all know it. 

Secondly, I believe most of the upcoming tunes won’t be the CD 2 stuff rerecorded by these guys. Maybe some Axl’s old lyrics, but I doubt Slash returned to the band to keep playing someone else’s notes. In fact, most people probably don’t perceive this as a “follow-up to Chinese Democracy” but a “follow-up to Use Your Illusion”. 

Edited April 6, 2021 by jamillos

[DurhamGirl]

52 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't think any single person or persons can get Axl do release music he is not happy with. This idea that Slash and Duff can somehow make Axl release music -- whether it is by arguing with him in ways no one else can or appeal to him as bandmates or through magic -- is weird to me and seems to disagree with what we know from how the band functioned in the 90s. Slash and Duff were quite impotent in making Axl do something he didn't want to, like hurry up recordings or arrive on stage on time. I am not saying Axl never listened to their input, he did, and some aspects of the band was really a group thing, like writing music, but as far as releasing that music and compromising on Axl's vision, nope. Many fans thought that with Slash and Duff rejoining the band things would be different, that the band would suddenly become like a true democracy again where they each had equal influence and power, but I think we have seen now that that is not the case. Axl is still Axl.

Axl obviously wants his band mates to have input on the music he wants to release. Axl didn't write the Chinese Democracy songs himself, that was a band effort. And when some band members left, Axl insisted on new band members recording new tracks to the songs. I assume this is Axl's way of making sure they all have some ownership to the music the play (not ownership in a legal sense, but artistic). The problem with this is of course that it takes a lot of time, and that the end result can be a bit muddy in terms of having too any layers and various players trying to fit their playing into existing songs. We saw this when Robin left the band and Richard later got to add his parts, when Brain re-recorded Josh's drum tracks note-by-note, when Bumble replaced some guitar tracks and tried to add new tracks to existing songs. This takes a lot of time and means that any release date is pushed back. This continuous process of replacing band members and having newcomers add their input to the songs, is one of the many reasons why it took so long to release Chinese Democracy.

Releasing the follow-up to Chinese Democracy with Slash and Duff in the band without the record featuring Slash and Duff, is probably a no-go for the record label and it is plausible that Slash and Duff would have contractual stipulations saying that any music released with them in the band should feature contributions from them. From this I assume that what has been happening lately is Duff and Slash adding their parts to CD2 songs. 

Back to the question: Would we have had music earlier if Slash and Duff didn't rejoin Guns N' Roses? I think that is a possibility. Maybe Axl realized that touring with yet another lineup featuring brand new band members would make less sense financially. Concert sales had been dwindling and the public would probably not be interested in yet another new lineup of unknowns. Maybe Axl considered two options, either releasing CD2 which was more or less finished (I believe) to boost interest in shows with whatever lineup, or get Slash and Duff back to do a massively anticipated and valuable "reunion tour". Unfortunately (for me), the latter was chosen and here we are.

Through all this I am NOT saying we are not getting new music. I am just leaning towards the possibility that we would have had new music sooner if the "reunion" hadn't happened. Maybe. Who knows?

Really interesting and informative post, thanks.

[SoulMonster]

13 minutes ago, jamillos said:

I don’t think it’s about literal making him release music he wouldn’t be content with. It’s more about the distribution of power/influence in the band. Slash’s opinion really can affect Axl more than that of anyone else in the past (which also includes speeding things up). Not to mention that the preceding (hired) gunners often may not have even dared tell him anything or make any kind of pressure. Slash can do that; he knows he won’t get fired, and since Axl started sounding the way he has since 2017/18, Slash has been the one actually carrying the biggest show on his shoulders. His position is way stronger these days than it ever was in the old days. GN'R would be over if Slash left again, and I think they all know it. 

Secondly, I believe most of the upcoming tunes won’t be the CD 2 stuff rerecorded by these guys. Maybe some Axl’s old lyrics, but I doubt Slash returned to the band to keep playing someone else’s notes. In fact, most people probably don’t perceive this as a “follow-up to Chinese Democracy” but a “follow-up to Use Your Illusion”. 

Yes, Slash won't get fired from trying to push Axl in a direction he won't go, but I also doubt it will have any affect on Axl. As I said, we have little evidence of Slash, or anyone, being able to force Axl in a direction he won't go. 

Yes, Axl and Slash do have a relationship that goes back longer than Axl has with any other band mate, but this emotional bond only goes so far and back in the mid 90s it didn't help much when Axl and Slash disagreed resulting in Slash quitting the band when he couldn't budge Axl. Why do you think it would be any different today? If anything, Axl has had many years to get used to having full control and get entrenched in being in charge.

It could very well be that Guns N' Roses would fold if Slash left again, as you say. But I also think Axl is willing to let that happen more than release something he is not happy with. He is uncompromising. There is also the possibility that Axl would be happy to stop touring with Guns N' Roses (he got quite the windfall after the "reunion" touring) but might consider releasing CD2 at some point without a touring lineup. So Slash leaving the band (again) doesn't necessarily mean it is the end of new music being released.

As for what songs will be featured on a possible new record, I strongly doubt there will be new songs with new vocals from Axl. I actually think Slash and Duff went into this knowing such a writing and recording process was not something they would be interested in, knowing what a toll it was to record UYIs and the terrible process of working after 1994 before they quit the band. I am pretty sure they rejoined the band under the assumption that if they decided to release new music they would most likely just add to already existing songs. They might accept starting a process with Axl of making a brand new record, but I don't think they have much hope it will work out, and will probably prioritize their other projects to have something to fall back on if the project halts. This doesn't mean Slash won't get to write his own lead guitar for the songs, I am sure Slash both insists on this and that Axl is entirely okay with it. As I stated previously, Axl has always wanted his band mates to have input on the music and I am sure Axl is still very fond of Slash's playing. 

[jamillos]

24 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, Slash won't get fired from trying to push Axl in a direction he won't go, but I also doubt it will have any affect on Axl. As I said, we have little evidence of Slash, or anyone, being able to force Axl in a direction he won't go. 

Yes, Axl and Slash do have a relationship that goes back longer than Axl has with any other band mate, but this emotional bond only goes so far and back in the mid 90s it didn't help much when Axl and Slash disagreed resulting in Slash quitting the band when he couldn't budge Axl. Why do you think it would be any different today? If anything, Axl has had many years to get used to having full control and get entrenched in being in charge.

It could very well be that Guns N' Roses would fold if Slash left again, as you say. But I also think Axl is willing to let that happen more than release something he is not happy with. He is uncompromising. There is also the possibility that Axl would be happy to stop touring with Guns N' Roses (he got quite the windfall after the "reunion" touring) but might consider releasing CD2 at some point without a touring lineup. So Slash leaving the band (again) doesn't necessarily mean it is the end of new music being released.

As for what songs will be featured on a possible new record, I strongly doubt there will be new songs with new vocals from Axl. I actually think Slash and Duff went into this knowing such a writing and recording process was not something they would be interested in, knowing what a toll it was to record UYIs and the terrible process of working after 1994 before they quit the band. I am pretty sure they rejoined the band under the assumption that if they decided to release new music they would most likely just add to already existing songs. They might accept starting a process with Axl of making a brand new record, but I don't think they have much hope it will work out, and will probably prioritize their other projects to have something to fall back on if the project halts. This doesn't mean Slash won't get to write his own lead guitar for the songs, I am sure Slash both insists on this and that Axl is entirely okay with it. As I stated previously, Axl has always wanted his band mates to have input on the music and I am sure Axl is still very fond of Slash's playing. 

I wouldn’t say “evidence” is the word, as we barely have anything similar to that in this background world of GN’R, do we. And if so, we usually only get to it retrospectively, after years. 
As for any emotional bond – no, I see it strictly politically these days. It’s about whether Axl wants to keep it all going. If he does, he has to listen to the two guys, or let's say just Slash, at least partially. Again, he could afford to fire Slash back in the 90s but cannot do the same now. And that is the key, that’s why it’s different now IMO. So you’re right that Slash cannot ever make him release anything, but what he could do with no problem is say “I’m not doing another big tour without new material”. They might eventually settle on a few festival gigs, but otherwise, Axl could do shit about it, other than try to accelerate his work on a new album. 
Again – I don’t subscribe to any black-or-white approach. I.e. not saying he can really make him release anything, but on the other hand he does have influence he didn’t have in the 90s (and someone like Tommy the General could have only dreamed of). 

If Slash left, yes, Axl could release CD 2, but if he wanted to tour it with hired guns again (I believe Duff would leave too, and even if he didn’t, the one really important here is Slash), the ticket numbers would go down drastically. And what would be the point in releasing it without a supporting tour, especially if everyone pirates it, knowing Slash isn’t there anyway? So in the end, we theoretically might get our hands on another, final piece of (old) music, but it would still be the end of GN’R. How many casual, Reunion fans would buy some 20-year old songs with musicians like Buckethead or Bumblefoot on it? 

As for the new songs, the only “evidence” we have suggests both – their working on brand new tunes plus their mentioning Axl has a lot of material. There is nothing preventing Axl giving them isolated pre-recorded vocals and letting them add their own music, for example. I think it could be a nice mixture of all these approaches. But we won’t know until we know. 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, jamillos said:

I wouldn’t say “evidence” is the word, as we barely have anything similar to that in this background world of GN’R, do we. And if so, we usually only get to it retrospectively, after years. 
As for any emotional bond – no, I see it strictly politically these days. It’s about whether Axl wants to keep it all going. If he does, he has to listen to the two guys, or let's say just Slash, at least partially. Again, he could afford to fire Slash back in the 90s but cannot do the same now. And that is the key, that’s why it’s different now IMO. So you’re right that Slash cannot ever make him release anything, but what he could do with no problem is say “I’m not doing another big tour without new material”. They might eventually settle on a few festival gigs, but otherwise, Axl could do shit about it, other than try to accelerate his work on a new album. 
Again – I don’t subscribe to any black-or-white approach. I.e. not saying he can really make him release anything, but on the other hand he does have influence he didn’t have in the 90s (and someone like Tommy the General could have only dreamed of). 

If Slash left, yes, Axl could release CD 2, but if he wanted to tour it with hired guns again (I believe Duff would leave too, and even if he didn’t, the one really important here is Slash), the ticket numbers would go down drastically. And what would be the point in releasing it without a supporting tour, especially if everyone pirates it, knowing Slash isn’t there anyway? So in the end, we theoretically might get our hands on another, final piece of (old) music, but it would still be the end of GN’R. How many casual, Reunion fans would buy some 20-year old songs with musicians like Buckethead or Bumblefoot on it? 

As for the new songs, the only “evidence” we have suggests both – their working on brand new tunes plus their mentioning Axl has a lot of material. There is nothing preventing Axl giving them isolated pre-recorded vocals and letting them add their own music, for example. I think it could be a nice mixture of all these approaches. But we won’t know until we know. 

Yes, Slash could say "I won't tour unless we release something new", but that doesn't sound like Slash at all. Slash is not that confrontational, in my opinion. At least, he hasn't been before. But maybe he has grown some balls? And Axl responding, "Okay, I will hurry up!" sounds absolutely not like anything Axl would say. So I don't see this happening. Neither Slash giving an ultimatum or Axl being forced forward. 

You ask what the point would be for Axl to release CD2 without a supporting tour. I believe Axl would be interested in releasing it because he wants people to hear it when he considers it finished and in line with his vision. So a tour wouldn't necessarily be required. Touring is a different aspect of being an artist (that he both likes and dislikes), and a financial motivation. So I see the possibility of Axl realizing he has no valid touring lineup and and decides to release CD2 without a tour, because he wants us to hear that music. I think it is a misconception that Axl doesn't want us to listen to his songs - what he doesn't want is for us to listen to the songs when they aren't finished. Unfinished songs aren't really the songs as he wants them to be presented. It goes with the ludicruous expectations he has set for himself and the perfectionist he is. The songs should be perfect. So he is perfectly happy spending years working on something. Unfortunately, musical trends change and band members come and go, which means the songs need to be reworked again, resulting in decades passing.

What evidence do we have for Guns N' Roses working on brand new songs?

[jamillos]

24 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, Slash could say "I won't tour unless we release something new", but that doesn't sound like Slash at all. Slash is not that confrontational, in my opinion. At least, he hasn't been before. But maybe he has grown some balls? And Axl responding, "Okay, I will hurry up!" sounds absolutely not like anything Axl would say. So I don't see this happening. Neither Slash giving an ultimatum or Axl being forced forward. 

You ask what the point would be for Axl to release CD2 without a supporting tour. I believe Axl would be interested in releasing it because he wants people to hear it when he considers it finished and in line with his vision. So a tour wouldn't necessarily be required. Touring is a different aspect of being an artist (that he both likes and dislikes), and a financial motivation. So I see the possibility of Axl realizing he has no valid touring lineup and and decides to release CD2 without a tour, because he wants us to hear that music. I think it is a misconception that Axl doesn't want us to listen to his songs - what he doesn't want is for us to listen to the songs when they aren't finished. Unfinished songs aren't really the songs as he wants them to be presented. It goes with the ludicruous expectations he has set for himself and the perfectionist he is. The songs should be perfect. So he is perfectly happy spending years working on something. Unfortunately, musical trends change and band members come and go, which means the songs need to be reworked again, resulting in decades passing.

What evidence do we have for Guns N' Roses working on brand new songs?

It is definitely not to be taken literally. We’re talking about the overall level of the current power/influence distribution in the band that is sort of in the air. Of course this isn’t how I’d imagine they communicate. 
I agree with that Axl’s perfectionism part, but I’d definitely rather wait another 5 years for an album with Slash than to have him leave and get a CD 2 within two years or even earlier. Well, to each their own. 
The new music – I meant Slash saying that he’s worked on new material.

[Free Bird]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, pretty much. My point has always been that Slash and Duff don't hold a magical key that unlocks Axl's will to compromise on his vision. Something stronger is needed than Slash and Duff, like a label putting extreme pressure or financial difficulties, that leave Axl with little alternative. As I wrote in another post just now, I believe there is a possibility Axl might have considered releasing CD2 if the "reunion" hadn't taken place. He still probably wants to release it, but now it needs contributions from Slash and Duff and that's going to take time (not because Slash and Duff can't add some tracks in an afternoon, but because of the post-recording work that follows when Axl and his team starts mixing and tooling the new contributions onto the songs). In short, I believe we could have had new music earlier if it wasn't for Slash and Duff rejoining. Or maybe not. I really don't know, but I lean towards that conclusion. 

I get that point with the post-recording work. It's definitely something that takes a lot of time in Axl's world and in my opinion that's one of his baddest habits. Let’s presume that's the reason why there isn't no new music since the reunion. Then I have to admit that there must have been enough time for him to release CDII before the reunion started. I mean most recently they ended up playing residencies in Las Vegas and even after that there was enough time to release a record. 

I think, whatever it is that prevents Axl from releasing music, it's a bigger issue than the post recording work and it's a state that lasted for a very long time. Probably long before the release of CD but even stronger after that.

[SoulMonster]

11 minutes ago, jamillos said:

It is definitely not to be taken literally. We’re talking about the overall level of the current power/influence distribution in the band that is sort of in the air. Of course this isn’t how I’d imagine they communicate. 
I agree with that Axl’s perfectionism part, but I’d definitely rather wait another 5 years for an album with Slash than to have him leave and get a CD 2 within two years or even earlier. Well, to each their own. 
The new music – I meant Slash saying that he’s worked on new material.

Ideally, I would like to hear the songs with the original lineup's contributions intact (Bucket, Robin) - but I suppose that train has left the station - and a new record with new songs with Slash (however hos unlikely I feel that is). But I would happily accept CD2 with Slash's lead guitar. I take anything! Just give me new music!!

As to your last sentence, Slash could be meaning that the songs will be new to the world, not that they have been recently written. If they are indeed working on new music, this gargantuan task of Guns N' Roses writing 10-12 new songs with Axl coming up with new lyrics and recording new vocals - then I am pretty sure we will get to hear CD2 before we get to hear it!

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Free Bird said:

I get that point with the post-recording work. It's definitely something that takes a lot of time in Axl's world and in my opinion that's one of his baddest habits. Let’s presume that's the reason why there isn't no new music since the reunion. Then I have to admit that there must have been enough time for him to release CDII before the reunion started. I mean most recently they ended up playing residencies in Las Vegas and even after that there was enough time to release a record. 

I think, whatever it is that prevents Axl from releasing music, it's a bigger issue than the post recording work and it's a state that lasted for a very long time. Probably long before the release of CD but even stronger after that.

Yes, Axl's tinkering is definitely one of many reasons CD took so long, and I agree, I don't think it is among the biggest reasons. I think the coming and going of band members (both negotiation with band members to make they stay, but also replacing them, and then having the new guys record), Axl's periods of inactivity and his need to be in the right frame of mind to both write and record, and issues with the recording label, were bigger hurdles and caused more time to fly by.

I think the reason CDII wasn't released in the years leading up to Slash and Duff joining, was that it didn't fully represent the lineup at the time (with especially Melissa and Dj not having enough contributions), and as I speculated earlier, I think this is important to Axl, and that there might have been issues with the label (like them wanting Axl to reunite with Slash and add his contributions so the record could sell more). If the band as to end, though, with no existing touring band in operation, Axl would be more free to release the record with whoever playing. Like going back to original versions with Bucket and Robin because there would be no current lineup to please. It wouldn't be necessary to release an album representing the current state of Guns N' Roses - because there would be no current state of the band. Axl could even consider a box set with numerous (finished) versions of the songs, showing how they have evolved as the band changed. With the band ended, the record label might also be more supportive of having the music released since they knew this was all they were going to get.

Now the "reunion" tour has run its course and fresh blood is needed. New music is needed. Plus Slash and Duff is back in the band. The label is probably salivating over the prospect of CDII with Slash. Axl is more than willing to release the music with Slash - he just still operates on geological timescale - and Slash wants to do it (Slash always wants to record and release). So in that sense it all looks promising for new music. Unless they have a new fallout, of course, or Axl has one of his extended down periods.

[allwaystired]

8 hours ago, PatrickS77 said:

Yeah. You're right. Way better to come on here every fucking day and complain over something you can't change and no matter how much you complain no one in the band ever will give a shit about what yout think. Seriously, if that band pisses you off that much, that all that's left is to complain every fucking day in a circle jerk of other complainers and moaners, then why not stop talking about them at all?? What's the point? Why be a moderator of a forum dedicated to a band that clearly pisses you off all the time and where you expect people to join in on your complaining or you will call them out for not complaining too?

When someone spends years complaining about a band here (and elsewhere), even before the reunion began and proudly proclaims he didn't even go to see that first show, which presumably was fresh and delivered what most of us hoped for and didn't think possible for close to 20 years and then sees (what?) a grand total of 1 (?)show and then gets bored and demands something new and fresh, then that deserves a comment. But you're right. I could have also singled you out, as one of the lead complainers, which is all you ever seem to do. Can't quote you all, really. But it's so foreign to me, to go a band forum every fucking day, to bitch and complain about them all fucking day long. And even more so, when you can't even be bothered to go to shows anyway.

Proof is in the pudding or lack of shows. In terms of touring, the UK is not important to them (or they to the UK) or there would have been more UK shows.

I "can't be bothered to go to shows"? That's news to me! Where you picking that one up from? Seen plenty thanks. Didn't realise it was a pissing contest though where the more money you spent on shows the more valid your opinion was. Perhaps you could organise some sort of graph to let us all know how many shows people have been to and how it impacts on the importance of their opinion? I'm sure you'd be right at the top. 

Tell you what though... if the band could be 'bothered' to change the setlist, play some new material, or find some energy then they'd find the ticket sales picked up pretty fast. 

I always enjoy the 'all you do is complain' thing which ignores all the many positive things fans say in favour of concentrating on them not being too happy that the band has hit a rut. 

There's a highly amusing irony in your constant complaining about complaining too. 

To paraphrase your own quote "it's so foreign to me, to go a band forum every fucking day, to bitch and complain about people complaining all fucking day long". 

 

 

 

[PatrickS77]

43 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

I "can't be bothered to go to shows"? That's news to me! Where you picking that one up from? Seen plenty thanks. Didn't realise it was a pissing contest though where the more money you spent on shows the more valid your opinion was. Perhaps you could organise some sort of graph to let us all know how many shows people have been to and how it impacts on the importance of their opinion? I'm sure you'd be right at the top. 

Tell you what though... if the band could be 'bothered' to change the setlist, play some new material, or find some energy then they'd find the ticket sales picked up pretty fast. 

I always enjoy the 'all you do is complain' thing which ignores all the many positive things fans say in favour of concentrating on them not being too happy that the band has hit a rut. 

There's a highly amusing irony in your constant complaining about complaining too. 

To paraphrase your own quote "it's so foreign to me, to go a band forum every fucking day, to bitch and complain about people complaining all fucking day long". 

 

 

 

That’s what you (and people like you) keep saying all the time, don’t you?

Why should they change up setlists for people, who mostly go to the one show in their country and spend the rest of the year, checking every setlist on the internet to see if there is a change? Makes no sense, really. Majority of people see 1 or 2 shows.

Except. That is not happening. Show me my „constant“ or „daily“ complaining. I rarely say anything to that matter (both on the band or forum members). Especially since it’s beating a dead horse anyway.

[allwaystired]

1 minute ago, PatrickS77 said:

That’s what you (and people like you) keep saying all the time, don’t you?

Why should they change up setlists for people, who mostly go to the one show in their country and spend the rest of the year, checking every setlist on the internet to see if there is a change? Makes no sense, really. Majority of people see 1 or 2 shows.

 

 

 

Except. That is not happening. Show me my „constant“ or „daily“ complaining. I rarely say anything to that matter (both on the band or forum members). Especially since it’s beating a dead horse anyway.

 

Haha, whatever. They can keep doing the same setlist forever then. 

You're clearly the biggest fan on here as you go to the most shows. Glad to know we've got that sorted and that people who dare only go to see the band once per tour aren't allowed to say they don't fancy seeing the same show year after year. 

We're lucky to have you really. 

[PatrickS77]

4 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Haha, whatever. They can keep doing the same setlist forever then. 

You're clearly the biggest fan on here as you go to the most shows. Glad to know we've got that sorted and that people who dare only go to see the band once per tour aren't allowed to say they don't fancy seeing the same show year after year. 

We're lucky to have you really. 

Seriously, that is so not the point. It's more like you guys should manage your expectations/demands and see different angles. But whatever. Keep complaining. I will stop reading.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, allwaystired said:

Tell you what though... if the band could be 'bothered' to change the setlist, play some new material, or find some energy then they'd find the ticket sales picked up pretty fast. 

The setlist is constantly changing with "new" songs being added on more or less every leg of a tour. Of course, to big fans like you and me, this is not sufficient, we would like much bigger changes like getting rid of all the slow songs, or playing some really deep cuts; but of course the band needs to cater to the majority of the audience goers who are happy with the sets, and not people like you and me. In short, the setlists might be preventing people like you from attending shows, but is not stopping casuals who come for the big hits.

I would looove if they played some new material! They tend to do this when they have an album to promote. Like on the warm-up shows in 1991 when they played almost 50% new material. They can't do this now, then. The demographics of their audience has changed. They could still play a few new songs, though, without this being a problem to casual fans, but as I said, the band will not likely do that until they have something to promote (which made the rehearsal of Hard School so intriguing).  As for whether the lack of debuting new songs are keeping the audiences away - nope. It might keep you away, but the vast majority of people attending GN'R shows don't come to hear something new, they come to hear something old and familiar.

They lack energy? We are talking about a band in their 50s here. What do you want from them? Stagediving, hanging from the rails? They run around quite a bit (Axl even broke his foot in 2016 from jumping). Richard may do some windmills. Melissa headbangs like there's no tomorrow. I think we get what we could expect. I wish we could take a time machine back to the 80s when they were in the 20s, playing on a small stage and not a huge stadium, but let's be realistic. We can't complain about the passage of time. Or, I suppose we can but what's the point?

[PatrickS77]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

The setlist is constantly changing with "new" songs being added on more or less every leg of a tour. Of course, to big fans like you and me, this is not sufficient, we would like much bigger changes like getting rid of all the slow songs, or playing some really deep cuts; but of course the band needs to cater to the majority of the audience goers who are happy with the sets, and not people like you and me. In short, the setlists might be preventing people like you from attending shows, but is not stopping casuals who come for the big hits.

I would looove if they played some new material! They tend to do this when they have an album to promote. Like on the warm-up shows in 1991 when they played almost 50% new material. They can't do this now, then. The demographics of their audience has changed. They could still play a few new songs, though, without this being a problem to casual fans, but as I said, the band will not likely do that until they have something to promote (which made the rehearsal of Hard School so intriguing).  As for whether the lack of debuting new songs are keeping the audiences away - nope. It might keep you away, but the vast majority of people attending GN'R shows don't come to hear something new, they come to hear something old and familiar.

They lack energy? We are talking about a band in their 50s here. What do you want from them? Stagediving, hanging from the rails? They run around quite a bit (Axl even broke his foot in 2016 from jumping). Richard may do some windmills. Melissa headbangs like there's no tomorrow. I think we get what we could expect. I wish we could take a time machine back to the 80s when they were in the 20s, playing on a small stage and not a huge stadium, but let's be realistic. We can't complain about the passage of time. Or, I suppose we can but what's the point?

Out of likes.

[allwaystired]

11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

The setlist is constantly changing with "new" songs being added on more or less every leg of a tour. Of course, to big fans like you and me, this is not sufficient, we would like much bigger changes like getting rid of all the slow songs, or playing some really deep cuts; but of course the band needs to cater to the majority of the audience goers who are happy with the sets, and not people like you and me. In short, the setlists might be preventing people like you from attending shows, but is not stopping casuals who come for the big hits.

I would looove if they played some new material! They tend to do this when they have an album to promote. Like on the warm-up shows in 1991 when they played almost 50% new material. They can't do this now, then. The demographics of their audience has changed. They could still play a few new songs, though, without this being a problem to casual fans, but as I said, the band will not likely do that until they have something to promote (which made the rehearsal of Hard School so intriguing).  As for whether the lack of debuting new songs are keeping the audiences away - nope. It might keep you away, but the vast majority of people attending GN'R shows don't come to hear something new, they come to hear something old and familiar.

They lack energy? We are talking about a band in their 50s here. What do you want from them? Stagediving, hanging from the rails? They run around quite a bit (Axl even broke his foot in 2016 from jumping). Richard may do some windmills. Melissa headbangs like there's no tomorrow. I think we get what we could expect. I wish we could take a time machine back to the 80s when they were in the 20s, playing on a small stage and not a huge stadium, but let's be realistic. We can't complain about the passage of time. Or, I suppose we can but what's the point?

When I say 'energy' I probably mean 'enthusiasm'. The difference is stark between 2016/2017 and now, especially with Slash. He looks utterly bored. 

Obviously we can't go back in time....and that's the problem. No-one in their right mind expects them to be how they were in the 80s/90s, but the band seem to want to live in that era and not move on, which is perhaps the oddest thing. If the trade is going to be entirely nostalgia....then that draws unfortunate comparisons. Personally, I'm very against living in the past, and would love to see a band adapting and growing into their age, as many rock bands do via new material, new arrangements, etc. They don't want to do that though, which I find very strange. And they look really, really fed up of playing the same old songs in the same old way to a lot of people. 

The thing is as well, I get the 'casuals' angle, but the ticket sales in America especially are dreadful, as any look at Ticketmaster shows. This would suggest that casuals actually want something different too, as they've ticked the GNR box. They came out, saw NITL, and have moved on it would seem to me. 

Basically, I want GNR to prove everyone wrong, deliver some new stuff, be the fantastic live act they were just a few years ago. Isn't that what everyone wants? 

[allwaystired]

46 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

Seriously, that is so not the point. It's more like you guys should manage your expectations/demands and see different angles. But whatever. Keep complaining. I will stop reading.

Great! No more complaints about complaints! 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

When I say 'energy' I probably mean 'enthusiasm'. The difference is stark between 2016/2017 and now, especially with Slash. He looks utterly bored. 

Obviously we can't go back in time....and that's the problem. No-one in their right mind expects them to be how they were in the 80s/90s, but the band seem to want to live in that era and not move on, which is perhaps the oddest thing. If the trade is going to be entirely nostalgia....then that draws unfortunate comparisons. Personally, I'm very against living in the past, and would love to see a band adapting and growing into their age, as many rock bands do via new material, new arrangements, etc. They don't want to do that though, which I find very strange. And they look really, really fed up of playing the same old songs in the same old way to a lot of people. 

The thing is as well, I get the 'casuals' angle, but the ticket sales in America especially are dreadful, as any look at Ticketmaster shows. This would suggest that casuals actually want something different too, as they've ticked the GNR box. They came out, saw NITL, and have moved on it would seem to me. 

Basically, I want GNR to prove everyone wrong, deliver some new stuff, be the fantastic live act they were just a few years ago. Isn't that what everyone wants? 

Ok, gotcha.

We want the same thing - more changes to setlist, new music being played, and more enthusiastic live shows. But I only see this happen as a result of a new album dropping, and maybe not to the extent that you expect. Only with a new album to promote will they change the setlists dramatically, play new songs, and get some enthusiasm back, in my opinion. If they continue without new music we will likely get more of the same thing we've had for a long while now (but hopefully they will come back fresh and enthusiastic after a long break,) and hopefully the audiences will be willing to pay to see Guns N' Roses again. We will soon find out.

[jamillos]

I’ve never understood this “they absolutely have to play these 8 staples every show” idea. Whenever I see an argument like this, I think: how the hell have other bands managed then? Like Iron Maiden or Metallica – the 30-year old songs are definitely not the bigger part of their gigs. Well, they have – through releasing more material and gradually incorporating it in the playlist. You got about 5 songs that should be played (in fact, I’d say just 3 or 4), then they should play 3–5 new songs, plus more later, and the rest should be the known songs but not just those that were played to death in the recent years, and they should alternate these as much as possible. Add some wanking around and you got the whole setlist. 
The key is willing to play more material. The band has new generations of fans, and they’re not gonna stop coming because they haven’t heard those exact 10 songs they expected from youtube videos. 

[allwaystired]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Ok, gotcha.

We want the same thing - more changes to setlist, new music being played, and more enthusiastic live shows. But I only see this happen as a result of a new album dropping, and maybe not to the extent that you expect. Only with a new album to promote will they change the setlists dramatically, play new songs, and get some enthusiasm back, in my opinion. If they continue without new music we will likely get more of the same thing we've had for a long while now (but hopefully they will come back fresh and enthusiastic after a long break,) and hopefully the audiences will be willing to pay to see Guns N' Roses again. We will soon find out.

Couldn't agree more.

I think people underestimate how important doing something new is to the band themselves. It's treated like a business ('people might not buy it, so why do it') but it goes far deeper than that. No band can keep playing the same songs over and over and still bring the enthusiasm. News songs would absolutely rub off on the way they played old ones. 

I know a lot of people don't like 'The Seeker' but I always did, as it definitely had a lot of energy which I attributed to the fact it was something 'new' for a lot of the band members.