If It was Officially Over

[EvanG]

3 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

 

The difference is, they released singles, played new songs live and let people know new music was coming before UYI... then they released 2 albums. That's clearly not the case with the NITL lineup. Every member aside from Axl has released new music since 2016.

 

3 hours ago, vloors said:

UYI was a double album and it was 4 years after AFD which wasnt too bad.

We also got Lies in between that too.

Beats these days with axl taking 15 years+ between releases

Four years for a second record at the beginning of their career is a lot. Point is, they've always taken a long time.

I'm looking at it as baby steps. The reunion was at first only two or three gigs, sorta testing the waters, see if it worked out. And it did, people were enthusiastic, and they were getting along as a band.

The next step was a world tour. It could have fallen apart, but it worked out, it was one of the most successful tours of the year, they got along, there was no drama like in the old days, they were selling out huge places, and so they prolonged the tour. People were still enthusiastic, not here on MYGNR obviously with all the negative nancies, but they were still drawing large crowds.

The next step is recording and making new music, and we've got snippets of information that Duff and Slash are working on new GnR music. Again baby steps. That's how it works for this band. They are in no rush. It sucks for fans who want to hear music, but it is what it is. Some bands release new music every few years like the Foo Fighters, some bands release music every 6 to 8 years like Metallica, and GnR takes even longer. If this is such a big issue for you, maybe it's time to give up and stop being a fan.

[vloors]

1 hour ago, EvanG said:

 

Four years for a second record at the beginning of their career is a lot. Point is, they've always taken a long time.

I'm looking at it as baby steps. The reunion was at first only two or three gigs, sorta testing the waters, see if it worked out. And it did, people were enthusiastic, and they were getting along as a band.

The next step was a world tour. It could have fallen apart, but it worked out, it was one of the most successful tours of the year, they got along, there was no drama like in the old days, they were selling out huge places, and so they prolonged the tour. People were still enthusiastic, not here on MYGNR obviously with all the negative nancies, but they were still drawing large crowds.

The next step is recording and making new music, and we've got snippets of information that Duff and Slash are working on new GnR music. Again baby steps. That's how it works for this band. They are in no rush. It sucks for fans who want to hear music, but it is what it is. Some bands release new music every few years like the Foo Fighters, some bands release music every 6 to 8 years like Metallica, and GnR takes even longer. If this is such a big issue for you, maybe it's time to give up and stop being a fan.

Hahah your an idiot. People can still be a fan of a band with one record. It doesn't matter. And people can have opinions without being told to give up being a fan.

Ive been a fan since the 80s and a fan of multiple other bands. Maybe you should "give up" sucking on Axls ass the whole time.

 

[megaguns1982]

2 hours ago, EvanG said:

 

Four years for a second record at the beginning of their career is a lot. Point is, they've always taken a long time.

I'm looking at it as baby steps. The reunion was at first only two or three gigs, sorta testing the waters, see if it worked out. And it did, people were enthusiastic, and they were getting along as a band.

The next step was a world tour. It could have fallen apart, but it worked out, it was one of the most successful tours of the year, they got along, there was no drama like in the old days, they were selling out huge places, and so they prolonged the tour. People were still enthusiastic, not here on MYGNR obviously with all the negative nancies, but they were still drawing large crowds.

The next step is recording and making new music, and we've got snippets of information that Duff and Slash are working on new GnR music. Again baby steps. That's how it works for this band. They are in no rush. It sucks for fans who want to hear music, but it is what it is. Some bands release new music every few years like the Foo Fighters, some bands release music every 6 to 8 years like Metallica, and GnR takes even longer. If this is such a big issue for you, maybe it's time to give up and stop being a fan.

Nobody knows for sure that they are all getting along but the reality is that even if Axl was still an asshole they’re willing to put up with it for the $$$ which I suspect is the case.

[Nintari]

On 5/15/2021 at 12:58 PM, Tom2112 said:

No point mentioning bands that wrote great records in their later years really, but ELO released a great comeback album a few years back that fit right in with the previous material, Jeff Lynnes in his 70s. There is no age cut off for when you might come across a great song idea. Toto's last album was brilliant 50/60 yr olds each. Van Halen Different kind of truth. Paul Simon, Robert plant, paul McCartney too all late 70s and releasing great albums.

Obviously there's plenty of very forgettable albums from older artists too. I just don't think an artist has to constantly better or equal their most beloved works... is it a good song? do the songs work together as a package? is it something you haven't heard before? that's what I care about. Also, what is the measurement of if it does stack up? I don't think you can fairly AB them. Those early albums have 30yrs of memory association, they have the bands most beloved hits. A new album could be stacked with great songs and it's never going to be accepted the same way as those old albums when the expectation level was so much lower or none at all.

 

I agree on a lot of those points, but you have to understand that a great deal of GNR's appeal back in the day was based off of how out of control, wild, aggressive and pissed off they were. They looked lean, mean... violent. Their riffs snarled. Their singer's vocals were rife with adrenaline and anger. They did loads of drugs. They fucked loads of women. They started riots. They were anti-woke and didn't care. They said whatever the fuck they wanted and did whatever the fuck they wanted to do... and they did it with an attitude of just try and stop us! In a way, they were hard rock's version of the Sex Pistols.

Now, how in the hell are they going to release a record that captures that sort of spirit when they're sixty and as sober as Mr. Rogers on a religious retreat? And if they don't capture that sort of spirit, and try to show us how they would have evolved without actually having evolved... what if we don't like it? What if we all find out that what we liked about GNR was that youthful attitude and swagger? What if we find out that, even had they stayed together, they were all gasoline and fire and without it, they would have just fizzled out anyway?

Maybe, just maybe... that's why we don't have a new record now. Maybe they know youthful rebellion was the essence of their sound. And now that it's gone, so too has gone their ability to craft anything appealing.

[ASLayerAODsk]

What if he does write daily? records for his vault? 

[Tom2112]

5 hours ago, Nintari said:

I agree on a lot of those points, but you have to understand that a great deal of GNR's appeal back in the day was based off of how out of control, wild, aggressive and pissed off they were. They looked lean, mean... violent. Their riffs snarled. Their singer's vocals were rife with adrenaline and anger. They did loads of drugs. They fucked loads of women. They started riots. They were anti-woke and didn't care. They said whatever the fuck they wanted and did whatever the fuck they wanted to do... and they did it with an attitude of just try and stop us! In a way, they were hard rock's version of the Sex Pistols.

Now, how in the hell are they going to release a record that captures that sort of spirit when they're sixty and as sober as Mr. Rogers on a religious retreat? And if they don't capture that sort of spirit, and try to show us how they would have evolved without actually having evolved... what if we don't like it? What if we all find out that what we liked about GNR was that youthful attitude and swagger? What if we find out that, even had they stayed together, they were all gasoline and fire and without it, they would have just fizzled out anyway?

Maybe, just maybe... that's why we don't have a new record now. Maybe they know youthful rebellion was the essence of their sound. And now that it's gone, so too has gone their ability to craft anything appealing.

Oh I get all that. The youthful fire as dead and gone, so best thing they can do is go the opposite direction from it... but I'll point back to VH who most would have thought would have put out a soft album, and then they came out with songs like Bullethead and Chinatown which had a similar aggression to their early albums... so it's not a write off that a band can recapture a little fire. 

As for them being sober. These guys are rockstars, they might be sober as in, not doing illegal drugs... but I wouldn't be surprised if there's some legal prescriptions and some sneaky beers and cocktails still going on. On stage they are Mr rodgers though

[allwaystired]

Surely no one expects them to be as they were in their 20s, or really wants that......but there has to be a bit of a middle ground! Just because they aren't young, doesn't mean they have to never do anything but tour the same set list for years and years. 

I don't believe they're not capable of progression as they're all incredible talents, but I don't think they're interested in progression anymore. Goodness knows why. What a chronic waste. 

Edited May 17, 2021 by allwaystired

[Rovim]

15 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Surely no one expects them to be as they were in their 20s, or really wants that......but there has to be a bit of a middle ground! Just because they aren't young, doesn't mean they have to never do anything but tour the same set list for years and years. 

I don't believe they're not capable of progression as they're all incredible talents, but I don't think they're interested in progression anymore. Goodness knows why. What a chronic waste. 

I don't think the lack of more changes to the set list has much to do with them being old, at least not directly. Maybe it's just what they think most fans want to hear. Axl wasn't that old in 2002 or 2006 for example but the setlist was still very similar to today.

if Gn'R had more albums as popular and loved as Appetite I believe Axl would have performed tunes from those as well. It's a much more commercial band now and the lack of new releases only makes it feel more commercial and kinda like a rehearsed and professional show instead of the kind of commercial but still loose rock band Gn'R was back in the day.

Edited May 17, 2021 by Rovim

[EvanG]

7 hours ago, vloors said:

Hahah your an idiot. People can still be a fan of a band with one record. It doesn't matter. And people can have opinions without being told to give up being a fan.

Ive been a fan since the 80s and a fan of multiple other bands. Maybe you should "give up" sucking on Axls ass the whole time.

 

*you're. Not ''your''.

(hihi)

7 hours ago, megaguns1982 said:

Nobody knows for sure that they are all getting along but the reality is that even if Axl was still an asshole they’re willing to put up with it for the $$$ which I suspect is the case.

 

That's not the reality, that's your assumption, there's a difference.

[jamillos]

10 minutes ago, Rovim said:

I don't think the lack of more changes to the set list has much to do with them being old, at least not directly. Maybe it's just what they think most fans want to hear. Axl wasn't that old in 2002 or 2006 for example but the setlist was still very similar to today.

if Gn'R had more albums as popular and loved as Appetite I believe Axl would have performed tunes from those as well. It's a much more commercial band now and the lack of new releases only makes it feel more commercial and kinda like a rehearsed and professional show instead of the kind of commercial but still loose rock band Gn'R was back in the day.

Ok but based on what do they think this? Fn'ando's Reddit surveys? I'm sure as hell I wouldn't be the only one who would prefer it if Axl, instead of squeaking and squawking, huffing and puffing through Better every night, chose something else but equally good and mainly suitable - like Prostitute, for example... 

[Rovim]

15 minutes ago, jamillos said:

Ok but based on what do they think this? Fn'ando's Reddit surveys? I'm sure as hell I wouldn't be the only one who would prefer it if Axl, instead of squeaking and squawking, huffing and puffing through Better every night, chose something else but equally good and mainly suitable - like Prostitute, for example... 

but how many fans want to hear Prostitute compared to SCOM or Nightrain? and Axl's performance quality seems to be a bigger issue for us, but perhaps not to many other fans.

nostalgia sells and the classic material stood the test of time, there's also no new material to make it feel fresh.

there are many UYI tunes they can reintroduce to the setlist but how many unplayed tunes would make a positive difference for the casual audience?

they can do what they want and play only a few Appetite tunes for example and play more obscure shit but I'm not sure it's the type of band that would do that. (would be great though)

 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Rovim

[janrichmond]

With such a small discography any changes to the setlist would be minimal at most. They have to play the hits to get the casuals to pay up

A smaller arena tour playing the lesser known songs would be good, if Axl can sing them of course.

[allwaystired]

Just now, Rovim said:

I don't think the lack of more changes to the set list has much to do with them being old, at least not directly. Maybe it's just what they think most fans want to hear. Axl wasn't that old in 2002 or 2006 for example but the setlist was still very similar to today.

if Gn'R had more albums as popular and loved as Appetite I believe Axl would have performed tunes from those as well. It's a much more commercial band now and the lack of new releases only makes it feel more commercial and kinda like a rehearsed and professional show instead of the kind of commercial but still loose rock band Gn'R was back in the day.

Oh you're right - it's nothing to do with their age really. I don't even see their age as an issue really - they're still more than capable. 

 

[janrichmond]

9 hours ago, EvanG said:

 People were still enthusiastic, not here on MYGNR obviously with all the negative nancies, but they were still drawing large crowds.

You say negative nancies, i think realistic opinions.

Please stop with the complaints about negativity, it's getting old now

[EvanG]

Just now, janrichmond said:

You say negative nancies, i think realistic opinions.

Please stop with the complaints about negativity, it's getting old now

I disagree.

And I wasn't complaining, I was talking about how a lot of people were/are still enthusiastic and that's why the tour is going on for so long.

[jamillos]

22 minutes ago, Rovim said:

but how many fans want to hear Prostitute compared to SCOM or Nightrain? and Axl's performance quality seems to be a bigger issue for us, but perhaps not to many other fans.

nostalgia sells and the classic material stood the test of time, there's also no new material to make it feel fresh.

there are many UYI tunes they can reintroduce to the setlist but how many unplayed tunes would make a positive difference for the casual audience?

they can do what they want and play only a few Appetite tunes for example and play more obscure shit but I'm not sure it's the type of band that would do that. (would be great though)

 

There are songs (about 3) that kinda "need to be" played: SCOM is one of them, while Better is not. It's one of the "new" tunes, so why not alternate it. That's the least they could do. 

[Rovim]

5 minutes ago, jamillos said:

There are songs (about 3) that kinda "need to be" played: SCOM is one of them, while Better is not. It's one of the "new" tunes, so why not alternate it. That's the least they could do. 

if the goal is to satisfy casuals as well, I think it's much more than 3. Better seems to get a good reaction. If you're getting no response from the crowd, I'm guessing the motivation to play the lesser popular numbers diminishes.

I'm all for alternating it as I feel the setlist is predictable. To be fair they did play Coma a lot which is more of a deep cut, Slither which was a nice surprise and Locomotive a few times which was cool plus SOYL.

with what they have I think they can do better though.

[EvanG]

I'm not very up-to-date with the setlists, but didn't they also play Dead Horse and So Fine? I guess those are deep cuts.

[Rovim]

Just now, EvanG said:

I'm not very up-to-date with the setlists, but didn't they also play Dead Horse and So Fine? I guess those are deep cuts.

yeah. 6 tunes is not bad at all but they didn't play those very often and not all 6 tunes in the same show? which might have made it feel like a more interesting show to hardcore fans.

[jamillos]

10 minutes ago, Rovim said:

if the goal is to satisfy casuals as well, I think it's much more than 3. Better seems to get a good reaction. If you're getting no response from the crowd, I'm guessing the motivation to play the lesser popular numbers diminishes.

I'm all for alternating it as I feel the setlist is predictable. To be fair they did play Coma a lot which is more of a deep cut, Slither which was a nice surprise and Locomotive a few times which was cool plus SOYL.

with what they have I think they can do better though.

I see your point, but take Skin N' Bones for example. When they introduced stuff that hadn't been normally played, like You Ain't the First, I can't imagine it got better reaction than what they would have normally played, and yet they kept it going for the year. 

In any case, they should mix it the hell up, yes. 

[EvanG]

3 minutes ago, Rovim said:

yeah. 6 tunes is not bad at all but they didn't play those very often and not all 6 tunes in the same show? which might have made it feel like a more interesting show to hardcore fans.

I don't mind the setlist considering they are playing three hour shows and they don't have that much material. I went to see them a few years ago with a friend who is a casual fan, only owns the greatest hits record. He had a good time because they obviously played almost all of the big hits and I had a good time because they also played Coma, Yesterdays and Madagascar and some (at least to me) unexpected covers.

[gavgnr]

Word on the street is that the record has been done since 2019

[EvanG]

2 minutes ago, gavgnr said:

Word on the street is that the record has been done since 2019

Would that be the street of dreams?

 

....I'll get my coat.

[jamillos]

11 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Would that be the street of dreams?

 

....I'll get my coat.

My first thought 

[Amaya]

I would still pop in. Other good threads other than just GnR stuff.