You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#5021 Re: The Sunset Strip » First Listen: Green Day's '21st Century Breakdown' » 886 weeks ago
I downloaded it onto my mp3 player, but haven't heard any of it yet.
#5022 Re: Guns N' Roses » Eddie Trunk: What's Up With Guns N Roses? » 886 weeks ago
Can you believe Bumble's played more shows with Duff than he has with Axl since Chinese Democracy's been released?
Yes.
#5023 Re: Guns N' Roses » Eddie Trunk: What's Up With Guns N Roses? » 886 weeks ago
And I'm not sold that album sales equals a fanbase. I own a lot of records of bands I'm not a huge fan of and have no intention of seeing them live. GNR has some classic songs that people want in their collections. I don't see that as a sign of people wanting, or caring about the old line up getting back together. But I could be wrong there. I just don't see it being viewed any more than Motley Crue.
To some extent, I agree with you. But look at it as a ratio instead of just numbers of people. On average, let's say 1 out of 5 people that buy an album would go see a band live (the number is wrong I'm sure, but humor me). The more albums you sell, the more likely it is that more people will show up at your show. There are certainly exceptions to the rule - some bands have huge tours but don't sell many records and vice versa, but on average it's a vaild comparison.
GNR never had the relationship with the fans to sustain a huge following like Aerosmith for example. I think a reunion would be big for nostalgia purposes, but that's about it. And I don't mean that as a negative.
How old are you? For you to say this, it's obvious to me that you were not a teenager or older when GnR was huge. I think you're basing the relationship with the fans on Axl and the band of today. In the past, Axl wasn't quite the hermit he is now, but more importantly, Slash was the face of the band with the media (hence why fans don't accept anything less than Axl/Slash as GnR). He did the interviews. GnR was all over the place. Why do you think there is ANY interest in this band? Because the fans had a strong relationship with the band.
You could argue Aerosmith didn't have a huge following until Pump came out, so they spent the first 10 years with a following, but not like they had in the late 80s and into the early 90s. Aerosmith was also dead during the Perry-less era...another non-coincidence. Aerosmith wasn't Aerosmith without Tyler/Perry. I don't make these things up. Why do you think EVERY band that has ever made it big hasn't been ablse to survive a major lineup change to the faces of the band? The only possible exception is AC/DC, but they weren't big until Back in Black even though people knew somewhat who they were.
#5024 Re: Guns N' Roses » Eddie Trunk: What's Up With Guns N Roses? » 886 weeks ago
Um, well Buzz, the Slash tirade was kind of the last thing Axl did, so there isn't anything else to really report on with Axl.
Fair enough. I think that speaks volumes by itself, but apparently you don't.
And it really wouldn't matter or change anything if everyone on this site thought the way you do. It's still just a few bitter and jaded old GNR fans, and just like right now, it wouldn't mean a thing, no matter how many times you try to push your opinion off as fact. But you go ahead thinking that the original GNR will be huge again.
I never said they will be huge. I don't think they could stand each other long enough to have the opportunity to be huge. But a tour would be big dollars for everybody involved and would be very successful. A reunion tour would make any post 1993 tour seem like a small party.
And despite everything involved with you on these boards, buzz, which for the most part I think is total nonsense, I'm not coming from a negative place. It's just that the original line up is not a huge part of my life. Thinking about them doesn't take up any of my time. And I have no emotional attachment in hoping to see them together again. And I don't have any of the negative feelings regarding the new band that you do. So, I think that is something I can understand from your POV, about this whole thing, that your feelings for the orginal line up, no matter how off base and unrealistic, and borderline belligerent I think you are about it sometimes, I can understand where you're coming from. And for your sake and a few others, I hope one day they share the stage together again.
Everyone is entitled to see the band how they want.
I agree with the last line 100%. I've never told anybody that they shouldn't like the new band. Love it all you want. I don't care about that.
I also understand not having an emotional attachment to the old band. Whatever, that's fine too. But don't discount my thoughts and the thoughts of many, many others because you don't get it. This band was the biggest band in the world for a period of 5 years or so. If you don't think they racked up a huge following then and continue to rack up fans, you haven't checked the sales figures for AFD and GH lately. There are way more buzzsaws out there than you seem to want to accept because of what you see on a message board.
And if you think they're dead, mad, okay. I've just seen this episode before. I know how it ends up. Everything is dead until something happens. If it doesn't, oh well, I still want those 2002-2006 recordings.
For the record I think the band is exactly the same way its been since 1996. Nothings changed. Nothing is saying otherwise. Carry on...
Agreed. The band is off the radar and nobody cares about what Axl is doing, much like the past decade or so. So nothing changing seems to support my views much better than it supports yours. If nothing has changed, according to you the best we can hope for is another failed album in 15 years. Now do you understand why people are giving up?
#5025 Re: Guns N' Roses » Eddie Trunk: What's Up With Guns N Roses? » 886 weeks ago
I think the new band...Bucket or not...is dead in the water. Axl could have pulled it off, but he didn't and he should take ALL the blame. The whole new Gnr thing just had too much bad karma from the get go. It's over. It pains me to say it because I really love Axl and Tommy together...but it's over.
I agree, actually, that he could have pulled it off. It always would have been difficult, but he could have pulled off at least a band that could have existed and mattered in some way instead of one that is an * in GnR history.
#5026 Re: Guns N' Roses » Eddie Trunk: What's Up With Guns N Roses? » 886 weeks ago
If you don't think that the music world would go ape shit for a Axl/Slash reunion, you're nuts. There's no other explanation for it. It's not a pipe dream for a few, it's apipe dream for the majority. There are far less people hanging around GnR sites these days...have you noticed that? There are even less involved in actual GnR discussions...have you noticed that? Most of the die hard fans of the original band have given up and left the boards. So just because they aren't here backing me up doesn't mean that anything has changed in what people want. What's changed is what people believe will happen. Do you know what completely sucked the air out of the sails? Think about it...the minute Axl launched his Slash tirade, everything stopped. the media covered the tirade, then nothing else.
When't the last time you saw someone other than Eddie trunk in the media talk about Axl? When's the last time a friend asked you about Axl or new GnR? Exactly.
The pipe dream for the few is the new band somehow having a successful life of it's own. It doesn't. There's no chance of it. GnR is officially dead until a reunion. If that never happens, there is nothing left to talk about.
#5027 Re: Guns N' Roses » Eddie Trunk: What's Up With Guns N Roses? » 886 weeks ago
I pulled the plug years ago, and I can make one hell of a strong case that I was right to do so. the people pulling the plug now are just accepting the situation for what it is. GnR is now a band that very, very few people care about.
Like I said earlier, the "band" may continue on in some form or another, but nobody really cares...apparently not even Axl.
#5028 Re: Guns N' Roses » Eddie Trunk: What's Up With Guns N Roses? » 886 weeks ago
Intercourse wrote:the Axl V Slash thing is strictly on the boards.
The rest of the world with a life couldn't give a toss.
People will go to a reunion in their hundreds of thousands to re-live their glory days of youth.
Nobody will give a fuck about the sad, dreary little dramas that a few millionaire divas wish to get into.
Most people want to forget about the bills for a day, drink some beer and hear songs that remind them of when their abs were as hard as their erections and they didn't have a morgage..I'll agree that the Axl vs. Slash thing is basically limited to the hardcore fanbase. But most everyone without a vested interest hates Axl and for the same reasons they wouldn't go see newGNR they wouldn't go see a reunion (fear of no-shows, late starts, riots). I'm not arguing that attendance numbers wouldn't be better than newGNR's, I'm just not sold that they'd be as good as some are making it out to be.
Maybe interest has decreased, but you're kidding yourself if you think fears of Axl no shows would keep the common fans from buying tickets to a reunion show. It might keep some of the diehard new band fans away, but that's it. The opportunity to see Axl and Slash on stage for (probably) the last time would draw huge crowds.
#5029 Re: Guns N' Roses » Eddie Trunk: What's Up With Guns N Roses? » 886 weeks ago
buzzsaw wrote:russtcb wrote:NOT TRUE. I'd totally book that show into my basement!
I honestly see what you're saying, but I have a question. You're basing those "no one's interested" claims on the possibility of a "CD Only" show right? If so, I sincerely doubt the odds of that even happening.
My point is that people aren't going to stay interested in AFD played by more new guys and there isn't enough interest in CD alone to justify a tour in the US.
Forget about the fact that there aren't a lot of promoters willing to gamble on Axl after multiple failed tours with a new band every time...that is the least of their (his) problems.
Ok. I get what you're saying. You're saying that the above reasons are what may be holding up any tour at all? If so, I can honestly see that. I sometimes wonder how they get the 06 tour booked after the 02 fiasco.
The album wasn't out yet, but it was promised, so there was still a curiosity factor. Look at that 06 tour closely. One or two small shows sold out, a few (very few) dates sold OK, the rest sold poorly or were cancelled. Promoters took notice in that, the lack of success (and promotion) of the album, and the lack of interest in anything fake GnR related, thus no US tour.
#5030 Re: Guns N' Roses » Eddie Trunk: What's Up With Guns N Roses? » 886 weeks ago
buzzsaw wrote:Define plenty of people. I think if you actually look into it, you'll be disappointed, but humor me.
I explained, look at the 560k albums sold. Bands that sell much less than that have plenty of people go see them on tour so why should it be any different in this case?
I've gone and seen Def Leppard every year the last 3 years and they always have solid crowds and their latest album didn't sell half as well as Chinese Democracy.
And let me clarify, I'm not necessarily comparing GNR to DL. I'm just going off of what I know. Def tours EVERY year and their latest album didn't sell well at all and they still fill seats so why couldn't GNR? They're bigger in a historical sense and more relevant at this time.
Well, Def Leppard is actually Def Leppard, so that might have something to do with why people will go see them. Real GnR would outsell Def Leppard with their eyes closed. Fake GnR doesn't even have an audience interested in seeing them outside of a few people on internet boards.
The album sold 560k in the US, correct? How many of those sold the first 2-3 weeks when there was a curiosity factor? How many sold after that? Are you really going to use the album sales to justify a tour? I hope not.
