that's completely untrue.

for the vast majority of bands there is still the cycle of album-tour-album-tour.

i genuinely do not no of any band or artist who tours as much as GnR withOUT fresh material.

bob dylan's tour is actually called 'the never-ending tour' & he's been on it since the early 90s (if not the late 80's) but even he has managed to release, what, 4/5 albums of original material since GnR dropped the UYI sets.

i'm genuinely past caring about the tour/recording situation. i'm tired of this: feeling.
but what i can't suffer is this apologetic nonsense that it's somehow ok or normal behaviour. hell, even in the stones thread someone made the point that the rolling stones have released more original material this century than GnR have. that is fucked up, plain & simple. & no disguising of the facts will hide the truth, that axl has fucked everything up - the legacy, the enjoyment, the fans & the passion. & his touring, tho it makes some people happy, isn't what will last. what will last is all the wasted opportunities & a handful of great songs.
in all seriousness, it's time for a reality check naltav. now if you wanna present some facts that prove your argument then maybe i'll check myself. but seriously, you're defending the indefensible with an idea - or formula - that doesn't hold water.
i do agree in a lot of ways the business model of the music industry has changed. but really, i don't know what you're seeing or what you're listening to if you think things have changed so much that it's justifiable to be touring an album that's really in effect a decade old, but being polite 5 years old. what other bands are doing that?!