You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Which do you feel is most likley
"Nothing to suggest that" and "definitive proof" are totally different things. Someone as supposedly prolific (though secretive) as Axl with his level of output could easily lead someone to ponder if he's tapped out.
I don't think so (yet), and certainly don't hope so, but it isn't at all ludicrous and the thought is certainly not snatched out of thin air. It's one of many potential conclusions whose internal logic is totally sound.
O.k. then let me try it one more time: whether or not any fan has heard music means jack shit. It doesn't suggest one way or another whether or not an artist is creative, just whether or not an artist's creation is deemed worthy of being packaged into a product for sale to public. The public would be the last ones to hear an artist's creation, if ever (look at Smile for example). I never said it was ludicrous, either. Just that it's always possible that someone could suddenly run dry creatively, and as we are the last ones to be in a position to determine that, what's the point in this speculation when no answer can come of it? Is it possible? Yes, it's always possible The lack of music being released does not answer the question, so what more really needs to be said on the subject.
Ali
Re: Which do you feel is most likley
Well, now you've killed the board. 
This is entire thread and much of the board is nothing but speculation. You yourself have said a lot on the subject, so there's obviously more to be said than simply "The lack of music being released does not answer the question", though that's clearly a neat summation of your feelings on the matter.
Re: Which do you feel is most likley
smoke wrote:"Nothing to suggest that" and "definitive proof" are totally different things. Someone as supposedly prolific (though secretive) as Axl with his level of output could easily lead someone to ponder if he's tapped out.
I don't think so (yet), and certainly don't hope so, but it isn't at all ludicrous and the thought is certainly not snatched out of thin air. It's one of many potential conclusions whose internal logic is totally sound.
O.k. then let me try it one more time: whether or not any fan has heard music means jack shit. It doesn't suggest one way or another whether or not an artist is creative, just whether or not an artist's creation is deemed worthy of being packaged into a product for sale to public. The public would be the last ones to hear an artist's creation, if ever (look at Smile for example). I never said it was ludicrous, either. Just that it's always possible that someone could suddenly run dry creatively, and as we are the last ones to be in a position to determine that, what's the point in this speculation when no answer can come of it? Is it possible? Yes, it's always possible The lack of music being released does not answer the question, so what more really needs to be said on the subject.
Ali
What's the point in speculation? Seriously Ali get off it. You said there's no reaosn to suggest it now here you are saying yes it's possible but to speculate anything is pointless. If we can't speculate what the fuck is the point of a Guns N' Roses discussion board? FACT is there's just as much reason to suggest Axl's creative juices have run dry as there are to suggest he's over flowing with creativity at this very moment. The difference is you'll go to any length to support the side that defends Axl Rose and you'll go to any length to disqualify a position that doesn't paint him in bright white light. To even begin to say "nothing suggests this" is ludicrous. There's nothing wrong with acknowldeging BOTH sides to something we are SPECULATING on.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Which do you feel is most likley
There's multiple sources though that suggest Axl has a lot of works that as yet remain unshared with the public. DJ for example has that story where just causally in a hotel Axl sat down and played an amazing song on piano that isn't released and described it as something he's playing with in his head.
If he were tapped out - I would wonder if he's actually tapped out in the "hard rock" genre...perhaps that's why from UYI on the band starts evolving - maybe it's easier for Axl to write a "Breakdown" than it is to add words to a guitar track like "Perfect Crime" these days. Which would explain why he didn't seem interested in working on the snakepit record which was full of similar riffs - but did write something like Oh My God, then Catcher in the Rye and This I love.
If he were out of ideas - I think maybe he's out of AFD and UYI rocker ideas.
Multiple reports suggest that Axl is equally interested in developing the instrumental side of things than he is in adding lyrics to the CD era tracks.
In the chats I think he said something about how a solo album of his would have been more instrumental too.
So on one hand I agree that no one inspires Axl like Slash and co did. And I also think Slash's new riffs are just as cool as his old...but I do wonder if just artistically Axl became attracted to something else and doesn't have much interest in making classic GNR rockers.
Re: Which do you feel is most likley
You guys are the most fickle group of fans ever. 
Of course their identity is going to be different now without Bucket and Finck. And the new era band have been playing club dates way before this.
And please. Those of you who relentlessly attacked the "freak show" era because of the way they looked and sounded, and wanted a more traditional looking and sounding musicans like you have now, can't turn around NOW and suddenly say it was better back then because he was doing something different, when you bashed him for it. Fuck that cheap, hypocritical bullshit. Have some fucking backbone at least. And a little self respect.
Re: Which do you feel is most likley
You guys are the most fickle group of fans ever.
Of course their identity is going to be different now without Bucket and Finck. And the new era band have been playing club dates way before this.
And pelase, have some self respect. Those of you who relentlessly attacked the "freak show" era beacuse of the way they looked and sounded, and wanted a more traditional looking and sounding musicans can't turn around NOW and suddenly say it was better back then because he was doing something different. Fuck that cheap, hypocritical bullshit. Have some fucking backbone at least. And a little self respect.
Are you seriously telling others to show some self respect because they are voicing an opinion? Are you seriously gonna sit there and righteously tell others that what they had hoped for back in the day is now suddenly invalid because they didn't like the image of the band or that they acknowldegd the image was out there? Do you really think the people on these boards ever turned a blind eye to Guns N' Roses becaue of the "freak show"? FUCK NO. I don't ever recall anyone on these boards saying they sucked based on image. Nor did anyone like them for their image. As far as I can tell people are music fans and the image was a side conversation that had everything to do with the general public's perception not the perception of the fans posting on these boards. Just because some people are acknowledging the fact the band is moving in a more classic Gn'R feel, sound wise(in show) and image wise you suggest people need to show some self respect? The people on these boards simply stated that the "freak show" image of the early CD era lineup didn't sit with the general public or wasn't their "taste" it had nothing to do with expectations for music which is what matters. The traditional sound people wanted was when it came to representing the OLD material. If that fact is lost on you holy shit. There is nothing wrong with people expressing that when the CD era had begun there was something exciting to look forward when it came to new music and a hope the band would go on to create their own identity and not lean on the old bands legacy for so long. Yet that never happend and when the "freak show" interpreted classic material however they seemed fit that's what people had an issue with. Not the direction they were going on CD era material. Unbelievable. Now everything seems to be pointing towards a nostalgia trip that would be better off served with the original band and fans are simply acknowledging it. The fact you miss all this and tell others to show some self respect for themselves is fucking pathetic. That was one of the worst posts I have ever read MisterID. Honestly it's so loaded with holier than thou righteous bullshit it's not even funny. Show a little self respect? How about you show some respect period.
Re: Which do you feel is most likley
Let me try and explain this to you so you can understand it:
Image was a big deal, going all the way back to HTGTH. How you don't remember this is beyond me. Pages and pages of threads dedicated to how gay they looked. Freak Show is what they refered to the band as. Hip Hop Axl and all that. They were absolutely being bashed about the way they looked. Image was a HUGE issue. And if you can't admit that then you are being completely and utterly dishonest. Even bashing Chris for being a synth player, that GN'R shouldn't have a synth player, but now they don't play enough synth? Really?
I'm not saying anything about voicing an opinion, I'm talking about people who are not standing up for what they used to bitch about. They wanted a more traditional looking and sounding band, now that they have it, they're complaining about it. If you hated the 02 line up, called them a freak show, hated the music they played and how they played it and at the same time said that they needed a more TRADITIONAL LOOK and a TRADITIONAL SOUND (the ones who said they liked Robin's 06 look because he didn't look like a freak) then don't turn around now and say it was better back then because he did something different, especially now that the band looks the way you wanted BACK THEN.
When I used to say that I thought it was cool and ballsy Axl was going in another direction than the original band, they jumped on me for it and attacked the band as a freak show, gay, goth, stupid, lame, etc.. They argued they WANTED to see traditional rock musicans with a traditional look and sound. They got it, now they're making shit up just to argue and bitch about the band.
If you thought their look and sound sucked, stick by it. But what's really funny is that the band now looks and sounds the way they wanted. Don't turn face and say something else now just so you can bitch about the band. It's pretty pathetic.
And for you to tell someone to show respect? 
Re: Which do you feel is most likley
the fact you are comparing the comments of HTGTH from ten years ago to the members we have here today says all I need to know about your pathetic post about people showing a lack of self respect. If only we could all be like MisterID and think the next move is always the greatest move in Gn'R land.
It was better back then because we all had expectations of the band going on to do something. Are you so high on yourself that you can't accept the fact that four years after 2002 people suggested they liked Robin's 2006 look better and because of it you think everything they felt and experienced and expressed in 2002 was bullshit? Image aside people were excited in 2002 because the possibility of THAT Gn'R creating their own identity existed. It never happend. People were excited in 2006 and then again in 2008/2009 because the possibility of THAT Gn'R creating their own identity existed but it never really happend and now here we are in 2012 and what they seem to be doing is emulating the classic lineup's identity to a fucking tee more and more each day. What people are saying is if it's the goal to be a tribute band in the closest possible way just reunite. If Not evolve and do SOMETHING of relevance. Meaning put out some music and allow THIS band to create their own identity regardless of how they want to dress and stop dicking around pretending to be the definitive Guns N' Roses.
The traditional sound discussion has always been in regards to new members performing classic Gn'R material and not interpreting it however they feel and you KNOW IT. It has never had anything to do with how the new era members sound on new era material. As for the image it's ALWAYS been a side discussion to what people have always been excited for. NEW MUSIC, and the evolution of Guns N' Roses and the possibility of them(whoever it is) to create their own identity and stand on their own merrit. That has NEVER happened. It's incredible that this is lost on you and that you're so offended people have been discussing it that you sink to telling people on this board they need to show more self respect for themselves because your feelings were hurt in 2002 and now in 2012 because someone didn't say something nice about Axl Rose. Shit nobody has even said anything mean or bad just stating what they think about the situation. Yet we have no self respect. Hilarious.
Re: Which do you feel is most likley
yeah, yeah, yeah, bla blah blah, lets totally ignore what was written so you can rant some more....
I made it very clear about people who bashed the band for the way they look, now turn around and say it was better for the sake of arguing. That's it, that's all. It was not a side discussion That's funny though. At least neemo can admit he hated the look of the 02 line up and likes this line up a lot better, their image being a big part of that. The HTGTH comment was showing you that image was never a side issue, like you try to play it off as. It was a big deal.
It has nothing to do with relevance, expectations, new music, being excited, or anything else you want to bring up. This was strictly about image and sound. It's about getting what you said you wanted to see during a time you hated the image of the band, and now you're changing that opinion now that you got it.
You're making up your own argument, just to argue. Of course you have to exaggerate and be over dramatic, as usual.
Re: Which do you feel is most likley
yeah, yeah, yeah, bla blah blah, lets totally ignore what was written so you can rant some more....
I made it very clear about people who bashed the band for the way they look, now turn around and say it was better for the sake of arguing. That's it, that's all. It was not a side discussion That's funny though. At least neemo can admit he hated the look of the 02 line up and likes this line up a lot better, their image being a big part of that.
It has nothing to do with relevance, expectations, new music, being excited, or anything else you want to bring up. This was strictly about image and sound. It's about getting what you said you wanted to see during a time you hated the image of the band, and now you're changing that opinion now that you got it.
You're making up your own argument, just to argue. Of course you have to exaggerate and be over dramatic, as usual.
You dont' even know me from 2002... maybe you do but I sure as shit had no clue who you were or even cared. I thought the image did suck in 2002 but I was excited as hell for what the posibilities were and to be honest I've always been one who doesn't really care about their image yet that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on it. I was at the first show in 2002, I was at the Hammerstein show and image aside(because that's what it is despite your refusal to acknowledeg that) I was super excited for this band to evolve. It hasn't happend and what people are now saying is why is it reverting back to even more of a tribute act with all things considered. Image, sound, venues you name it. What people are asking is if they aren't gonna move forward than this schtick right now is better served with the original lineup. Yet for some fucked reason you think asking that question is a lack of self respect and there's a lot fo us who ahve been asking it. Basically you just questiond the integrity of everyone in this discussion. But back pedal some more.
you've missed the entire point of what people are saying..... shocking.
