You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Guns n Roses in Studio 2011
It was the best year since 1993.
But that's because it didn't have much competition. 1993 DESTROYS 2010 on every level. There's no year of the new band's existence that is comparable to any year of the old band. I'm not saying it's not possible - it just hasn't happened YET, if it ever will.
I mean think about it - 2001 was a couple shows, then silence. 2002 was marked by an aborted tour. 2003, 2004 & 2005 were totally silent. 2006 was an exciting time because they were touring the world, Axl was out and talking to anyone who would listen, and the album was expected by Thanksgiving. We all said that year was the best since 1993, then. Then the album doesn't come out, and spoils the end of the year, because it was another "go nowhere" year, which entirely soiled 2007 because Axl just copped out and ignored the elephant in the arena everywhere by an album that wasn't delivered. 2008 was glorious for the album, or so we thought, but a band in-hiding virtually soiled the release. 2009 was virtually silent until December - so forgettable. 2010 was alot like 2006, but without the baggage of the album, plus alot of new live performances of the CD songs - thus the best year since 1993.
So maybe i'm being tough on them. But continuing on into 2011, doing the same stuff they did in 2010 will suck AND be tired. They NEED a new album. Even a reunion at this point will be a cop out.
I just felt Buzz didn't deserve to be laughed out for simply reporting the news the way it is. If you saw GN'R live this year, it was probably a great year - but for those of us who didn't - we could care less. That's all I was trying to say. That's why a new album of studio material, or even live albums, help suffice us fans who can't see a show, because the band provides us with something to chew on, while everyone else can see a show. We didn't get that or anything close to that.
As for watching White Lion - I wouldn't recommend it - they suck. But you're ALL WRONG on why I referenced them, BUT I FORGIVE YOU because you are unfamiliar with them. White Lion, like Faster Pussycat, like LA Guns, like Whitesnake... all have something in common with Guns N' Roses. Those bands as they exist today are all former popular LA rock bands from the 80's, who tour now as nostaligia acts with JUST their original lead singer, and an entirely different backing band, but still called by their original name.
THAT'S why I referenced them. Not to say "GN'R suck", they don't. Far from it. The band is wonderful. But the circumstances are identical. The difference is, all of those other bands were modestly successful and the same thing happened. Guns N' Roses is a case of a "high-profile" band from LA, having the same thing happen to them.
I thought Axl was above following in those artists footsteps and their lack of credibility in how they conduct themselves today. Instead Axl is identical to them, he just is alot more popular.
I wish the man would release some music.
Trust me, if GN'R release a new album in 2011, and suddenly Buzz says "no one cares", i'll be the first one to say - "shut up - you're wrong".
Re: Guns n Roses in Studio 2011
I don't think GNR got anything in common with a generic 80's band dude, except for actually popping up at the same time. I don't listen to those bands coz they suck. However I do support the cause as in the singers cause, as the world is much richer with those bands than without. If those guys started taking you peoples advice, we wouldn't actually have these bands to listen to and yes, I don't think they're very good, but they are tons times better than what 2010 managed to produce of good rock bands. I support their cause to keep playing those songs, so maybe a kid will like it and pick up a guitar.
I wasn't really laughing at him, I was simply laughing at the entire board situation. It becomes a parody sometimes, just like the band we are at least pretending to like.
Im not nagging about new music yet. They just got off the road. I give that shit time, because I know what goes on. Waiting for new music by Axl in 2011 is like waiting for Micheal Jackson to rise from the dead. I have absolutely no hopes for it. If it happens then it's great but I don't see it coming. I was pleased by 2010 and happy with it for the time being.
Re: Guns n Roses in Studio 2011
You're living completely in fantasy world if you think the band is famous. Axl is famous. That's it. Nobody would pay a dime to see these guys without him.
agree with this
but i really cannot tholl this attitude:
It might be an uncomfortable opinion for the fan boys - but it's true. As soon as their home country said - "fuck off" - they lost all credibility.
america does not have the monopoly on what is credible in rock n roll. in fact it's the opposite, as history will continually testify.
europe & the rest of the world understand, welcome & appreciate rock & rock artistry to a much greater extent than america ever has or ever will.
you're mistaking the effect for the cause.
if they lost credibility it was before america even had the chance to say fuck off. i think what you mean here is that they are increasingly irrelevant in the pop medium.
but in terms of credibility i would say the behaviour over the past few years has been as true to the spirit of GnR & rock n roll than GnR have probably ever been. now a lot of that may not be due to choice, if axl had the support maybe he'd still love to be on MTV making mega videos & 'playing the game'. but their arch contrariness (or their sheer idiocy) IS where their credibility comes from. the Azoff courtcase is where their credibility comes from. their unwillingness, reluctance to make any kind of concessions even if it means constantly shooting themselves in the foot in terms of bizness & popularity is where their credibility comes from. release an album, tour your balls off & ignore all the BS & pettiness.
but that also means it's easy for people to deride or ignore them. that isn't lack of credibility it's lack of relevance.
the only thing they did 'wrong' was actually releasing a single (not that anyone would have noticed tho). & prob the BestBuy deal 2 but not being in america that BS didn't affect me..
Axl continues to drive it further into the ground with his lack of balls to release new material.
this is where they lack credibility. this cause is why america has said fuck off (along with countless other, less important but no less significant, reasons) but other than that & some setlist issues GnR are grand guardians & bearers of the rock n roll flame.
Re: Guns n Roses in Studio 2011
buzzsaw wrote:It really has nothing to do with the name - well, very little at least. The band is not famous anymore. It just isn't.
Maybe this is getting into symantics...but to me it's because GNR is so famous that things are how they are. It's because of fame that you can swap out band members and still play big festivals and arenas. It's because of fame that you can not release an album in a decade and then get an exclusive distribution deal. It's because of fame that you can not tour the usa and still be ranked 30th biggest tour in the year.
Keeping it real here, my band is not famous, GNR is famous...to be honest I can't even believe you're saying otherwise. Is the fame less now than it was in 1991 - sure - i'll accept that. Does the fame mean every punter knows each band member's individual name - nup. So they could be more famous, but at the end of the day, they're playing massive gigs worldwide as GNR, when I tell someone I'm going to see GNR people know what i'm talking about...that's fame.
How many of them could name a single person in the band? Take Axl out, and how many could they name? You said your band isn't famous. If Axl fired the band (not out of the realm of possibility) and hired your band to be GnR (maybe out of the realm of possibility, but you never know), are you suddenly famous or do people just know the name of your new band?
DCK - I get what you're saying. Believe me, I wish I could see things the way you do. I can't. If this is the best we can get, I'll take it, but I'll also understand that it's Axl that is keeping us from getting more.
Re: Guns n Roses in Studio 2011
monkeychow wrote:buzzsaw wrote:It really has nothing to do with the name - well, very little at least. The band is not famous anymore. It just isn't.
Maybe this is getting into symantics...but to me it's because GNR is so famous that things are how they are. It's because of fame that you can swap out band members and still play big festivals and arenas. It's because of fame that you can not release an album in a decade and then get an exclusive distribution deal. It's because of fame that you can not tour the usa and still be ranked 30th biggest tour in the year.
Keeping it real here, my band is not famous, GNR is famous...to be honest I can't even believe you're saying otherwise. Is the fame less now than it was in 1991 - sure - i'll accept that. Does the fame mean every punter knows each band member's individual name - nup. So they could be more famous, but at the end of the day, they're playing massive gigs worldwide as GNR, when I tell someone I'm going to see GNR people know what i'm talking about...that's fame.
How many of them could name a single person in the band? Take Axl out, and how many could they name? You said your band isn't famous. If Axl fired the band (not out of the realm of possibility) and hired your band to be GnR (maybe out of the realm of possibility, but you never know), are you suddenly famous or do people just know the name of your new band?
DCK - I get what you're saying. Believe me, I wish I could see things the way you do. I can't. If this is the best we can get, I'll take it, but I'll also understand that it's Axl that is keeping us from getting more.
I'm not really seeing things in any certain way. I'm just can't be bothered to argue for a lost cause. A cause that was lost in 1991 and will never return again.
I'm not putting it on Axl all the time. I'm putting it on everyone. I'd rather put it on a disfunctional band that people glorify in which they can't see where doomed from the moment they started - which was also why they were so successfull. They were a disaster waiting to happen, and it did.
Besides that, I take it quite calmly and I enjoy the music I'm being served, like I will enjoy a new album if they ever do one. If not, no one really believed they would release CD anyway, so what's the loss.
Argue over this stuff like you put up is to me such a waste of time, but I understand the frustration.
Re: Guns n Roses in Studio 2011
I'd just like to jump in here and say that the fire during a Great White gig happened at "The Station" in Rhode Island.
Now that I got the important stuff out of the way. Nice to see Axlin bringing back the "GNR is no different than Faster Pussycat" mantra. I thought he retired that a long time ago. At least with your explanation you made some sense saying that they all only have their original lead singer with a totally different backing band. I don't know if that's true or not, I'll take your word for it. I know Whitesnake has constantly changing lineups. But honestly, that is the ONLY thing GNR has in common with those bands. As poorly as GNR's recent US tours may have gone, those bands couldn't fill clubs in the cities that GNR was playing to 5,000+ on a nightly basis. So I still don't get your argument. You go WAY overboard with that one to try and prove a point and your point is completely lost to most, if not all of us. Sorry, it's just an insane argument.
As for the name selling tickets. I'll absolutely agree with that. I'm not sure anyone ever argued any different. People aren't buying tickets because they loved "Chinese Democracy", aside from the hardcores. With that being said though, outside of a handful of people I really don't think the crowd is surprised or upset to find out there's no Slash anymore, or that the current band's performance is below par.
The albatross of an album, "Chinese Democracy" was released in 2008, when many fans claimed it would never see the light of day. It did. And people were ecstatic! There was next to no action following its release and everyone began wondering if they would ever tour. Well it took over a year, but they did. And people were ecstatic! And they've been touring ever since and now people are complaining that there's no new music, and that the setlists are static, and they're not touring the US, and even if they did it wouldn't be worth going to see, and they wouldn't be able to fill Joe's Bar and Grill on a double bill with White Lion. I've heard it all before, I'll hear it all again.
Re: Guns n Roses in Studio 2011
I'd just like to jump in here and say that the fire during a Great White gig happened at "The Station" in Rhode Island.
Now that I got the important stuff out of the way. Nice to see Axlin bringing back the "GNR is no different than Faster Pussycat" mantra. I thought he retired that a long time ago. At least with your explanation you made some sense saying that they all only have their original lead singer with a totally different backing band. I don't know if that's true or not, I'll take your word for it. I know Whitesnake has constantly changing lineups. But honestly, that is the ONLY thing GNR has in common with those bands. As poorly as GNR's recent US tours may have gone, those bands couldn't fill clubs in the cities that GNR was playing to 5,000+ on a nightly basis. So I still don't get your argument. You go WAY overboard with that one to try and prove a point and your point is completely lost to most, if not all of us. Sorry, it's just an insane argument.
As for the name selling tickets. I'll absolutely agree with that. I'm not sure anyone ever argued any different. People aren't buying tickets because they loved "Chinese Democracy", aside from the hardcores. With that being said though, outside of a handful of people I really don't think the crowd is surprised or upset to find out there's no Slash anymore, or that the current band's performance is below par.
The albatross of an album, "Chinese Democracy" was released in 2008, when many fans claimed it would never see the light of day. It did. And people were ecstatic! There was next to no action following its release and everyone began wondering if they would ever tour. Well it took over a year, but they did. And people were ecstatic! And they've been touring ever since and now people are complaining that there's no new music, and that the setlists are static, and they're not touring the US, and even if they did it wouldn't be worth going to see, and they wouldn't be able to fill Joe's Bar and Grill on a double bill with White Lion. I'v' e heard it all before, I'll hear it all again.
And...
Amen.
Happy new year.
Re: Guns n Roses in Studio 2011
Axlin08, L.A. Guns still has two original members, dude, and they put out new music every other year or so. I still dig them. They rock! I'd rather see them than GNR.
I've referenced this before, but ONE of the LA Guns, not sure which one, played at a club down the street from me a few years back. And I certainly don't live in a metropolitan area by any means. GNR would never play that club. Hell, I doubt Steven Adler even would. Not that there's anything wrong that. In fact I'd love to see Axl and company play a nice acoustic set there, but it just ain't happening.
