You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: 2011-12 Guns n Roses Tour
Hmm..Chinese Democracy or Snakepit..
Anyway, with Axl gone and the rest of them getting some guy in to sing. People would trash it as hard as they trash the band now.
I don't agree that he created a mess. It was ALWAYS a mess. It's always been a mess. And for as long as he's there, it WILL be a mess. I kind of like that, in a self abusing kind of way. It would have been a mess without him as well, at least for several years.
A friend of mine is a singer and keeps asking "why would I bother release anything when people just download it?". And he's not in a big band or anything. He just doesn't think it's worth it.
He sort of painted it black for me. If he is doubting if he should release something, a guy that is releasing stuff every other year then imagine what Axl might think..........
Creating this stuff is funny...you sit there with your crap and it's all finished and you're like "okay...finally done.." and then you can't even begin to think abou releasing it for people to steal it. Might as well keep it to yourself, you created it afterall, and you feel ok with what you did.
Re: 2011-12 Guns n Roses Tour
The download aspect is valid, but Axl left the release for too long. Back in 2000, when the album was almost set to come out, he himself blocked the release. Jimmy Iovine & Axl had come to an agreement following the lukewarm reception of OMG that the album could use a more rocking edge, which (ironically) collided with Robin leaving for a NIN tour.
Robin himself claimed early on into the tour that he was set to return, only Axl started auditioning players first. At that point, Robin's stance got more degradatory. This sort of non-communication (and, hence, mutual misunderstanding) is nothing new in the organization, obv.
Anyway, back in 99/00, this was the big label album, which Interscope had just inherited from Geffen. It would've gotten all the push Iovine could've mustered, despite the quality. Finally, when they did get the Beavan album with an RTB flourish & Bucket solos together, A&R man Bob Ezrin was called into a listening and he said what Iovine & his crew had been hinting at all along.
A lot of that stuff wasn't just good enough.
Axl was devastated. The album was heading towards the holiday market of 2000. A world tour had been prepared, with big comeback performance set for Rock in Rio 3. In the preceding summer months, he'd made the impromptu appearance at Gilby's show, conquering his stage-fright due to so many years in between by fluke.
But yeah, fear of rejection and cottoning to a more pleasant version of reality (in which one is an undisputed genius, because nobody tells him otherwise) was what robbed us an album for another eight years.
- emcitymisfit
- Rep: 28
Re: 2011-12 Guns n Roses Tour
well, FWIW, if the dates are Legit, i'll see yous guys in Dallas.
Re: 2011-12 Guns n Roses Tour
The download aspect is valid, but Axl left the release for too long. Back in 2000, when the album was almost set to come out, he himself blocked the release. Jimmy Iovine & Axl had come to an agreement following the lukewarm reception of OMG that the album could use a more rocking edge, which (ironically) collided with Robin leaving for a NIN tour.
Robin himself claimed early on into the tour that he was set to return, only Axl started auditioning players first. At that point, Robin's stance got more degradatory. This sort of non-communication (and, hence, mutual misunderstanding) is nothing new in the organization, obv.
Anyway, back in 99/00, this was the big label album, which Interscope had just inherited from Geffen. It would've gotten all the push Iovine could've mustered, despite the quality. Finally, when they did get the Beavan album with an RTB flourish & Bucket solos together, A&R man Bob Ezrin was called into a listening and he said what Iovine & his crew had been hinting at all along.
A lot of that stuff wasn't just good enough.
Axl was devastated. The album was heading towards the holiday market of 2000. A world tour had been prepared, with big comeback performance set for Rock in Rio 3. In the preceding summer months, he'd made the impromptu appearance at Gilby's show, conquering his stage-fright due to so many years in between by fluke.
But yeah, fear of rejection and cottoning to a more pleasant version of reality (in which one is an undisputed genius, because nobody tells him otherwise) was what robbed us an album for another eight years.
listening to any record industry buffoon is where the problem was....make your art, follow your heart, and move on. Some things stick, some don't. Every great legendary artist has made poor decisions and does things they regret. You have to stick to your guns and roll on.
The album back in early 2000 right after Bucket made his mark was probably light years better than what we got. 
Re: 2011-12 Guns n Roses Tour
Hmm..Chinese Democracy or Snakepit..
Anyway, with Axl gone and the rest of them getting some guy in to sing. People would trash it as hard as they trash the band now.
I don't agree that he created a mess. It was ALWAYS a mess. It's always been a mess. And for as long as he's there, it WILL be a mess. I kind of like that, in a self abusing kind of way. It would have been a mess without him as well, at least for several years.
A friend of mine is a singer and keeps asking "why would I bother release anything when people just download it?". And he's not in a big band or anything. He just doesn't think it's worth it.
He sort of painted it black for me. If he is doubting if he should release something, a guy that is releasing stuff every other year then imagine what Axl might think..........
Creating this stuff is funny...you sit there with your crap and it's all finished and you're like "okay...finally done.." and then you can't even begin to think abou releasing it for people to steal it. Might as well keep it to yourself, you created it afterall, and you feel ok with what you did.
Boy that analogy only works if alot of different variables come into play. It depends on why you record and/or perform and/or release.
Some people just like playing in front of a crowd. Something spiritual about it to them. They'll cover people's songs, some good, some really really bad.
Some people record music, never for release (not Axl). They just fuck off in their "studio" and just do it for expression, but either don't have the backing for release, or just don't do it.
Others cut music and release it, but simply to make a living.
Some actually cut music, do it for expression, BUT the money aspect is secondary. I personally feel this is the ONLY way and the ONLY reason in today's downloading climate to make music.
You don't make music and go, "why release it if people just download it". Well you're not really making music are you? If you make music, but no one is around to hear it, does it really make a sound?
If anyone artistically, me, you, Axl, some other guy... ever and I mean EVER starts cutting music, for the sole purpose of making a living, but not really for the point of the music itself - they need to quit, go get an education like Duff, and find something else to do with their life.
They just lost all credibility.
I think alot of the anti-downloading artists out there kind of lose sight of this aspect today. Sorry, but the bottom line is if you're in music today to drop ONE album, and think you're gonna live in a mansion and drive Lambo's, you're delusional. Today you gotta WORK. Just like Buckethead. You gotta drop it, tour the shit out of it. If someone likes it, great! If you have a really great SINGLE, that takes off on iTunes, great! You just might get that mansion.
But today's artists have got to go back to a 50's/60's mindset. Work, work, work to put yourself over. The days of sitting back and living on your private island and decided if and when you want to work, ala Jagger... are done, unless your Adele or GaGa.
Re: 2011-12 Guns n Roses Tour
I AM FUCKING THERE if they play Ruth Eckerd Hall.
Dec 16th?
That'd be a great Christmas gift for me and a couple other people who have begged me to take them to a GN'R show since they missed out in 2006. I'm still gonna try to make that Bucket show in Sept.
I find it very difficult to believe they'd play there. The place is run by volunteer senior citizens. I also can't imagine it staying open until 2 am either.
That being said, it's what I consider the absolute best size venue for this band. However I don't like the layout of Ruth Eckerd Hall. Although I do see shows there every now and then. The last one being Don Rickles and Joan Rivers. 
Also that venue was popular in the 80's because there really weren't that many places to see shows. Now we have the amphitheater by the fairgrounds and of course the St. Pete Times arena. I just find it difficult to believe, but hey if it happens I'll be there.
Re: 2011-12 Guns n Roses Tour
^^ Haha, funny shit
They could always have Rickles open for GN'R.
DCK wrote:Hmm..Chinese Democracy or Snakepit..
Anyway, with Axl gone and the rest of them getting some guy in to sing. People would trash it as hard as they trash the band now.
I don't agree that he created a mess. It was ALWAYS a mess. It's always been a mess. And for as long as he's there, it WILL be a mess. I kind of like that, in a self abusing kind of way. It would have been a mess without him as well, at least for several years.
A friend of mine is a singer and keeps asking "why would I bother release anything when people just download it?". And he's not in a big band or anything. He just doesn't think it's worth it.
He sort of painted it black for me. If he is doubting if he should release something, a guy that is releasing stuff every other year then imagine what Axl might think..........
Creating this stuff is funny...you sit there with your crap and it's all finished and you're like "okay...finally done.." and then you can't even begin to think abou releasing it for people to steal it. Might as well keep it to yourself, you created it afterall, and you feel ok with what you did.
I think alot of the anti-downloading artists out there kind of lose sight of this aspect today. Sorry, but the bottom line is if you're in music today to drop ONE album, and think you're gonna live in a mansion and drive Lambo's, you're delusional. Today you gotta WORK. Just like Buckethead. You gotta drop it, tour the shit out of it. If someone likes it, great! If you have a really great SINGLE, that takes off on iTunes, great! You just might get that mansion.
But today's artists have got to go back to a 50's/60's mindset. Work, work, work to put yourself over. The days of sitting back and living on your private island and decided if and when you want to work, ala Jagger... are done, unless your Adele or GaGa.
Axl should do what Prince does and package his album with the ticket to one of his shows. That's why Prince can still sell the shit out of his albums.
And AC/DC wouldn't let a single song off of Black Ice go on iTunes when it came out. That's smart. Not going to stop people from downloading it illegally, but still, I have to hand it to them.
Re: 2011-12 Guns n Roses Tour
DCK wrote:Hmm..Chinese Democracy or Snakepit..
Anyway, with Axl gone and the rest of them getting some guy in to sing. People would trash it as hard as they trash the band now.
I don't agree that he created a mess. It was ALWAYS a mess. It's always been a mess. And for as long as he's there, it WILL be a mess. I kind of like that, in a self abusing kind of way. It would have been a mess without him as well, at least for several years.
A friend of mine is a singer and keeps asking "why would I bother release anything when people just download it?". And he's not in a big band or anything. He just doesn't think it's worth it.
He sort of painted it black for me. If he is doubting if he should release something, a guy that is releasing stuff every other year then imagine what Axl might think..........
Creating this stuff is funny...you sit there with your crap and it's all finished and you're like "okay...finally done.." and then you can't even begin to think abou releasing it for people to steal it. Might as well keep it to yourself, you created it afterall, and you feel ok with what you did.
Boy that analogy only works if alot of different variables come into play. It depends on why you record and/or perform and/or release.
Some people just like playing in front of a crowd. Something spiritual about it to them. They'll cover people's songs, some good, some really really bad.
Some people record music, never for release (not Axl). They just fuck off in their "studio" and just do it for expression, but either don't have the backing for release, or just don't do it.
Others cut music and release it, but simply to make a living.
Some actually cut music, do it for expression, BUT the money aspect is secondary. I personally feel this is the ONLY way and the ONLY reason in today's downloading climate to make music.
You don't make music and go, "why release it if people just download it". Well you're not really making music are you? If you make music, but no one is around to hear it, does it really make a sound?
If anyone artistically, me, you, Axl, some other guy... ever and I mean EVER starts cutting music, for the sole purpose of making a living, but not really for the point of the music itself - they need to quit, go get an education like Duff, and find something else to do with their life.
They just lost all credibility.
I think alot of the anti-downloading artists out there kind of lose sight of this aspect today. Sorry, but the bottom line is if you're in music today to drop ONE album, and think you're gonna live in a mansion and drive Lambo's, you're delusional. Today you gotta WORK. Just like Buckethead. You gotta drop it, tour the shit out of it. If someone likes it, great! If you have a really great SINGLE, that takes off on iTunes, great! You just might get that mansion.
But today's artists have got to go back to a 50's/60's mindset. Work, work, work to put yourself over. The days of sitting back and living on your private island and decided if and when you want to work, ala Jagger... are done, unless your Adele or GaGa.
Oh, by far I agree with your opinion.
98% of every artist, me included, just write or create because they think it's fun. I write because I think it's fun, and I see no money in it at all. Like my friend, he's cut between that "work, then have fun" and "have fun to create music" or whatever you might put it. With Axl, he doesn't really need to do it. He can play in his studio and do some shows because he's cut for life anyway. He can do whatever.
I get kids at work coming to me saying they want to be musicians for a living and I don't really know what to fucking say. I point to a friend of mine, a decent local artist with a little name for herself. She has a day-time job and I'm sure have a lot of fun doing gigs on her spare time. Like Duff, get an education and do it on your free time. If you hit a lucky spot like Lady Gaga or something then hurray, but you can't base yourself on it alone.
Historically, artists haven't been paid shit for what they do. They create because they like it. I write for myself, and I write because I think it's fun. Not once did I ever think I could do it as a full time job. It's just hard work, but it's fun work. If I already had like 3 hit books and a s hit load of money I could pull an Axl and just do shit on my own time, to my own liking.
So I agree to all of what you said.
