justynius Posted January 3 Posted January 3 23 hours ago, kiwiguns said: Why release music, when the path and financial return is touring the world for all artists more so when Live Nation are the key holders to the music industry today compared to the past when Universal Music Group, Sony, Warner, Epic etc had all the power and influence. For multimillionaires with maybe 25-35 years left in life (if nothing goes wrong before then), maybe maximum financial return isn't the #1 priority? None of these guys are hardcore entrepreneurs trying to compile as much capital as possible for larger endeavors, seems like most every dollar they bring home is going to their own pockets and at that point each extra dollar matters less and less. Slash and Duff release a ton of new music on their own. I think most of the hesitation is with Axl, and it's mainly due to the heavy burden of the Guns N' Roses name and perhaps the underwhelming reaction to Chinese Democracy. In the early 2000's he seemed genuinely enthusiastic with unleashing each new song and hyping up the album. Hopefully they can get back to that. There's fulfillment in creating something and bringing it to completion together, no matter what kind of financial results it achieves. 21 hours ago, Karice said: I was actually referring to Axl's fiery, hair rigger, pissed off, wild, temperamental, moody, rebellious, etc persona when I said his manic swings were entertaining and amusing when he was 25-32, but at 62 would look sad and pathetic. 💡 Donald Trump, at age 78, was filling stadiums with basically just that. Maybe you'd consider that "sad and pathetic" too, but you can't deny it definitely struck a chord regardless of age. Quote
axlvai Posted January 3 Posted January 3 Not really a nostalgic act.... they are just taking the money that they dont got in their prime bc they were too young and didnt know a shit about business. Quote
SoulMonster Posted January 3 Posted January 3 (edited) 7 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said: GNR fans aren't nostalgic for Slither... it was only a massive hit for 2/3 of the guys, 20 years ago. Good lord man, are you drunk or just trolling? 7 hours ago, ZoSoRose said: Yeah, of the 3 times I have gotten Slither live, it got a huge reaction and that isn't just clapping and shouting. People around my actual seat were stoked for it. Slither counts as a past hit as much as any song in the set imo. Again, nothing wrong with that. Even if people are happy to hear Slither I still wouldn't refer to it as a nostalgic GN'R song. Similarly to if Black Hole Sun got a good reception, it would have zero to do with GN'R drawing upon nostalgia on their shows. If GN'R were to replace their entire set with popular covers, that wouldn't make GN'N a nostalgia band because that terms is understood as a band exploiting nostalgia among theirs fans to sell tickets. Edited January 3 by SoulMonster Quote
Free Bird Posted January 3 Posted January 3 1 minute ago, SoulMonster said: Even if people are happy to hear Slither I still wouldn't refer to it as a nostalgic GN'R song. Similarly to if Black Hole Sun got a good reception, it would have zero to do with GN'R drawing upon nostalgia on their shows. Simply wrong. Slither is GNR related, BHS is not. Stop bullshitting this thread already Quote
SoulMonster Posted January 3 Posted January 3 Just now, Free Bird said: Simply wrong. Slither is GNR related, BHS is not. Stop bullshitting this thread already Yeah, in three-degrees-of-separation it gets closer, no doubt about it. But it doesn't really matter to my point, even if we were to include it as a song GN'R plays to draw upon the nostalgia heart strings of their fans and sell tickets, the band was only 85.2% nostalgic on their last live show. And hey, if we look at the show before that, the number is 78.3%. So the shows are not 100% about nostalgia, as is my point in this thread. There are bands that are as pure nostalgia bands as it is possible, GN'R is playing new songs and adds covers for which (most) fans won't feel nostalgia. The "bare minimum" as was concluded earlier. Quote
jamillos Posted January 3 Posted January 3 3 hours ago, Gimpy Hewitt said: This has been a nostalgia act since 2018 Exactly, unfortunately. 2018 was the turning year. They’d finished the "look, we’re back!" phase, which was fresh and exciting (especially the couple of the first gigs brought surprises every evening, and the songs were alternating a lot), Axl could still sing etc., even though the AC/DC damage had already taken a toll, so he was saving his voice more. But 2018 was the year where they should have taken a break and started working on a new chapter. They’d already earned half a billion by that time, too. Alas, they chose the never-ending touring instead, with occasional different deep cuts, covers, or old demos, but essentially the same tour nonetheless. Sure, it’s their own business after all, and people are having fun at the shows, but it’s been going downhill ever since, and in any case, it’s a shame to witness such a needless waste of potential year after year. 1 Quote
SoulMonster Posted January 3 Posted January 3 When they started touring again in 2001 and then in 2006, the sets obviously contained a lot of the classic songs and I am sure most concert-goers went for the nostalgia. Still, the lineup was new, they played some new songs, and there was a genuine excitement among both band and fans about the next chapter of the band. It was a forward-looking band, but a band that couldn't escape the success of the past and whether they wanted it or not they had to play the big crowd-pleasing, and nostalgic hits. Then with the release of Chinese Democracy they obviously played more new songs for a while. People still came to hear Paradise City and Sweet Child O' Mine, the classic songs were the big draw and the reason they toured successfully. But the band couldn't really be accused of only catering to nostalgia. They obviously had to play the classics, but intermingled with new stuff and at first they were still a hope of more new music coming, so the band could be considered to only adding old songs by popular demand but was really fully committed to new music. Then as the CD touring went on it became stale. No new music was coming. The band did no obvious effort to look forward, the CD songs became old themselves. Then when Slash and Duff returned to the band it was all about looking to the past, it was all about nostalgia. Slash and Duff rejoining is the most nostalgia move the band has ever done. "We are selling less and less tickets? Shit, how can we make it more attractive to fans? Let's see if we can make the band more similar to how it was in the 80s and 90s." From then on I feel the band has mostly been about selling history to the fans. Catering to nostalgia. The old logo, the old players, old songs. And fans lap it up because that's what they want, a piece of something they miss or never got to experience. Then in 2021 and onwards with the release of some new music, I think they have dialed it back slightly, the "bare minimum" to not be 100% about nostalgia. As far as I am concerned, it is too little, too late, but I take it. Quote
ZoSoRose Posted January 3 Posted January 3 9 hours ago, SoulMonster said: Even if people are happy to hear Slither I still wouldn't refer to it as a nostalgic GN'R song. Similarly to if Black Hole Sun got a good reception, it would have zero to do with GN'R drawing upon nostalgia on their shows. If GN'R were to replace their entire set with popular covers, that wouldn't make GN'N a nostalgia band because that terms is understood as a band exploiting nostalgia among theirs fans to sell tickets. It’s literally a Slash and Duff song. Of course it is a step up from BHS I don’t even know what you are arguing about in here. They mainly rely on the past and nostalgia. They’re in their 60s. None of that is a bad thing. 9 hours ago, SoulMonster said: the band was only 85.2% nostalgic on their last live show. And hey, if we look at the show before that, the number is 78.3%. So the shows are not 100% about nostalgia, as is my point in this thread. Omg 4 Quote
SoulMonster Posted January 3 Posted January 3 (edited) 10 minutes ago, ZoSoRose said: It’s literally a Slash and Duff song. Of course it is a step up from BHS I don’t even know what you are arguing about in here. They mainly rely on the past and nostalgia. They’re in their 60s. None of that is a bad thing. What WE are arguing about is whether GN'R is 100% based on nostalgia or not. I say they aren't. You even say that yourself with your "mainly", so what's your problem? Edited January 3 by SoulMonster Quote
ZoSoRose Posted January 3 Posted January 3 5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: What WE are arguing about is whether GN'R is 100% based on nostalgia or not. I say they aren't. You even say that yourself with your "mainly", so what's your problem? What a stupid thing to argue about. Percentages lol. Okay, Souly, they are MAINLY a nostalgia band. Now we agree. 1 Quote
allwaystired Posted January 3 Posted January 3 (edited) 9 hours ago, SoulMonster said: the band was only 85.2% nostalgic on their last live show. And hey, if we look at the show before that, the number is 78.3%. So the shows are not 100% about nostalgia I think at this point it really is time to get some fresh air, have a drink or chat to a member of the gender we are personally attracted to. Time out, time out! Haha! Edited January 3 by allwaystired 1 Quote
SoulMonster Posted January 3 Posted January 3 2 minutes ago, ZoSoRose said: What a stupid thing to argue about. Percentages lol. Okay, Souly, they are MAINLY a nostalgia band. Now we agree. Yes, it is incredible stupid how some people can't accept that they aren't entirely a band based off on nostalgia. But what can you do? Hopefully now that it is broken down to lovely percentages they will accept it. One can hope, right? Just now, allwaystired said: I think at this point it really is time to get some fresh air, have a drink or chat to a member of the gender you are attracted to. Time out, time out! Haha! Because calculating percentages is somehow a sign that one needs fresh air? It took me 30 seconds. Trust me, I will happily spend 30 minutes getting a point across. I think you already know this. Quote
Gordon Comstock Posted January 3 Posted January 3 Go outside, this is just sad. They're still 100% a nostalgia band 2 2 Quote
allwaystired Posted January 3 Posted January 3 5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: Yes, it is incredible stupid how some people can't accept that they aren't entirely a band based off on nostalgia. But what can you do? Hopefully now that it is broken down to lovely percentages they will accept it. One can hope, right? Because calculating percentages is somehow a sign that one needs fresh air? It took me 30 seconds. Trust me, I will happily spend 30 minutes getting a point across. I think you already know this. I would say fresh air is definitely a good idea, yes, when a thread has descended into nostalgic percentages. 1 Quote
SoulMonster Posted January 3 Posted January 3 Just now, allwaystired said: I would say fresh air is definitely a good idea, yes, when a thread has descended into nostalgic percentages. Ascended into irrefutable (and to some, incomprehensible) fact-y percentages. I love them. And I guess those who don't should just skip those posts, maybe take a break themselves if it bothers them so? Quote
allwaystired Posted January 3 Posted January 3 Just now, SoulMonster said: Ascended into irrefutable (and to some, incomprehensible) fact-y percentages. I love them. And I guess those who don't should just skip those posts, maybe take a break themselves if it bothers them so? A love of irrefutable facty percentages hey? Saucy. Quote
SoulMonster Posted January 3 Posted January 3 7 minutes ago, Gordon Comstock said: They're still 100% a nostalgia band Not as long as a significant portion of their sets are comprised of new songs and covers for which the audience can't possible feel some GN'R nostalgia. Then they are <100% a nostalgia band. But to people without the interest or ability to see anything in anything but black and white, to people who want to hate at max, or to people who just can't comprehend anything but the simplest of concepts... Quote
Gordon Comstock Posted January 3 Posted January 3 9 hours ago, SoulMonster said: the band was only 85.2% nostalgic on their last live show. 100% 23 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: Ascended into irrefutable (and to some, incomprehensible) fact-y percentages Completely opinion-based 21 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: Not as long as a significant portion of their sets are comprised of new songs and covers for which the audience can't possible feel some GN'R nostalgia. Which had been the case for exactly zero of their shows Quote
SoulMonster Posted January 3 Posted January 3 9 minutes ago, Gordon Comstock said: Which had been the case for exactly zero of their shows What? Quote
ShadowOfTheWave Posted January 3 Posted January 3 Debating with @SoulMonster is the quintessential fool's errand. Why anyone tries is beyond me. 3 1 1 Quote
janrichmond Posted January 3 Posted January 3 @SoulMonster You should change your name to QuibbleMonster 1 1 Quote
Free Bird Posted January 3 Posted January 3 1 hour ago, SoulMonster said: Not as long as a significant portion of their sets are comprised of new songs and covers for which the audience can't possible feel some GN'R nostalgia. Then they are <100% a nostalgia band. But to people without the interest or ability to see anything in anything but black and white, to people who want to hate at max, or to people who just can't comprehend anything but the simplest of concepts... Lol they can play whatever the fuck they want. They could play a full show of cover songs and they still were a nostalgia act, just because that’s why people are attending their shows. They wanna watch and listen to GNR. The band from the 80s/90s. Axl running over the stage, Slash letting his guitar cry. NOSTALGIA. No matter what percentage games you are calculating can change this fact. Quote
SoulMonster Posted January 3 Posted January 3 Just now, Free Bird said: Lol they can play whatever the fuck they want. They could play a full show of cover songs and they still were a nostalgia act, just because that’s why people are attending their shows. They wanna watch and listen to GNR. The band from the 80s/90s. Axl running over the stage, Slash letting his guitar cry. NOSTALGIA. No matter what percentage games you are calculating can change this fact. Have I said they are not a nostalgia act? My argument is that they are not a pure nostalgia act, their shows are not solely about nostalgia. Please try to keep up. And yes, of course percentages is a nice way to demonstrate this, if we agree that it can be quantified in such a way. Facts are -- and I am sure you know this, too -- that the band's sets are comprised of mostly old, classic songs but that they also interject a few newly released songs and covers for which the fans can't be expected to necessarily be nostalgic, songs that are not part of the classic GN'R canon. Oh no! It isn't black or white! It it something in-between! *head explodes* If they were to play about as many new songs as they would play old songs, would everybody then agree that they weren't purely a nostalgia act? If not, where does how many new songs must they play to escape their fate? And if you agree, then surely it should be possible to accept that there is a continuum here, and not a binary thing, an "either or" situation. And if we simply calculate this, GN'R seems to be about 85% based on playing songs that are nostalgic. So they are a nostalgia act, but it could be worse (and a bunch or "worse" cands were mentioned earlier in the thread). They do the "bare minimum," as we concluded on earlier. Quote
Recommended Posts
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.