You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#611 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N Roses OFFICIALLY inducted into Rock n Roll Hall of Fame » 706 weeks ago
I look at it like this
If GNR quit after UYI, would they be in the HOF? YES
If GNR's only album they ever put out was Chinese Democracy, would they be a HOF band? NO
How many bands do you know of that were inducted into the the RRHOF on the basis of only one album anyway?
Ali
#612 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N Roses OFFICIALLY inducted into Rock n Roll Hall of Fame » 707 weeks ago
Ali wrote:I disagree. The whole point of a hypothetical does not HAVE to be to disregard the facts, especially if you want a credible hypothetical situation. What's the point of a hypothetical argument if it is completely dissimilar to the actual situation being discussed? Not much of one in my book.
And, nice little potshot there at the end. It says a lot that rather than stay on topic, you make a snide comment like that.
Ali
the whole point of something being hypothetical is to take a situation that does not exist and base an opinion on it. Why the hell would anything be hypothetical if you had to have an exact scenario that actually exists to talk about? A credible hypothetical situation? hahaha. It's HYPOTHETICAL!! I's clear as day that it means to use an example that does not exist. It's like asking "how would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot?" Clearly the situation does not exist but hypothetically if it did..... amazing how you do not see that.
You'll call me out for ignoring facts in a hypothetical situation?
Ok .
BLS wrote:I just hope Izzy shows up.. Fuck Axl and Slash.:haha:
true. In all of this Izzy is a wild card on his own. Never even thought of that. Maybe Izzy just doesn't wanna show up
If the basis of the situations are completely different, then what is the point in your absurd hypothetical? What is the point in making an apples to oranges comparison? There is NONE. That is exactly why your hypothetical was called out. You were trying to make a comparison between two completely different scenarios - i.e. compare apples to oranges and it got called out for that.
The point of a hypothetical situation, at least when I use hypothetical situations to further a discussion, is to try and view things from a different perspective. As an example, if person A says something to person B that is callous with regards to a particular sensitivity person A has, I would ask person A, what if person B said something to you about this particular sensitive subject. The point is not to ask person A what if person B said something bigoted and then try and compare that to what person A actually did.
If the scenarios being compared are too dissimilar for someone to suspend disbelief enough to consider the point you're making, your hypothetical loses any and all value. That's what happened here. Rather than acknowledge that happened, you went on the defensive.
Ali
#613 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N Roses OFFICIALLY inducted into Rock n Roll Hall of Fame » 707 weeks ago
Ali wrote:Yeah, I'm with you on the ridiculousness of that U2 hypothetical. I saw a comment on one of the Indy reviews published last night that said what Axl is doing would be like Paul McCartney calling Wings the Beatles. Yeah, I guess, if you're a complete and utter moron who ignores the facts regarding what happend with GN'R. The fact is this: GN'R never ended, and all the members did not leave at once.
The band changed when Steven was replaced with Matt because they are completely different drummers. The band changed when one of the co-founders along with Axl, Izzy, left the band. Yet, they continued on without, IMO, the most important member in the band's history other than Axl. Then Slash left and they continued on with Duff. Duff actually played with Robin Finck. Then Duff left.
You cannot ignore the facts surrounding the situation just to make an argument. Well, you can, but you'll be called out on it
Ali
Ali wrote:You cannot ignore the facts surrounding the situation just to make an argument. Well, you can, but you'll be called out on it
Actually when it comes to something being hypothetical yes you can. That's the whole point of something being hypothetical. It pretty much means "disregard the facts but what if.... " But whatever, you've got your Rose coloured shades superglued to your face so....
I disagree. The whole point of a hypothetical does not HAVE to be to disregard the facts, especially if you want a credible hypothetical situation. What's the point of a hypothetical argument if it is completely dissimilar to the actual situation being discussed? Not much of one in my book.
And, nice little potshot there at the end. It says a lot that rather than stay on topic, you make a snide comment like that.
Ali
#614 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N Roses OFFICIALLY inducted into Rock n Roll Hall of Fame » 707 weeks ago
U can argue however u want and i really don't care who all u think should get in.
What pisses me off, is people who can sit there with a straight face and say they don't wanna see Original Appetite lineup perform a couple songs one last time.
I think anyone who says that is fucking nuts. No offense.
I started listening to GN'R in 1988. I was sad to see Slash go in 1996, and Duff in '97. By 1998, I was ready to move on. It's not "fucking nuts" to have made peace with the non-existence of the old lineup.
Ali
#615 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N Roses OFFICIALLY inducted into Rock n Roll Hall of Fame » 707 weeks ago
Neemo wrote:bono, MrID might as well drp the debate cuz you guys are goign in circles and its hurting my head
yeah orig band had chemistry bigtime but alot of it was worked on...they toured constantly for more than 2 years
this new band has pretty saweeome chemistry too, they interact well up there, now thats not saying that i think they should all get in and yes i think that most if not all of the new guys would be kind of embarrased to accept a nomination into the hall under the guns moniker, but tbh i dont the band personally and their opinion on the matter and i dont know how the hall works for this kind of thing, i still say it could swing either way
i tell you one thing though, IMO if Dizzy and Matt get in then Gilby should too
IMO there is a crystal clear deliniation of 2 eras in guns and i agree with Bono that basically one era ceased to exist and the other began to form...you guys are arguing semantics, you and i (the gnr nerds) know that they desolved over a period of years....average jo not so much, nothign happpened from sympathy up til OMG so for all intensive purposes Slash, Duff, Matt and Gilby all left at once. helll i didnt even know myself that gilby wanst on sympathy until like last year or the year before
Adler 1990
Stradlin 1991
Clarke 1994
Slash 1995-6
Matt 1996
Duff 19974 guys left under difference circumstances in a 4 year span of down time
new lineup does well worldwide, but let not kid ourselves, the popularity of GnR in 2011 doesnt hold a candle to the level of stardom they had in 1990-3
and that comes from the cake eating kool-aid drinking me
Really, I wasn't disagreeing with him. He just likes to argue
1 - I wasn't disputing that the original guys are the ones who deserve to go into the HOF. I don't care either way, but I'd like to see Axl and Slash on stage again. Bono has principles, though, and a criteria on which he will accept Axl and Slash on stage together. I don't.
2 - And I have never, ever, ever, ever said anything ever even remotely close that the new band holds the same popularity or sway to the original line up or anything like it. I did say, the band carried on. And my point was that the "replacing an original member trend" started long before the epic hiatus. And it started over seven years with Steven, not 4.
3 - I never said there wasn't more than one era with GN'R. There were actually a couple of them before the main guys split. I was talking specifics, you guys are talking perception... And this "semantic" point has to do with who should be in the HOF. That's what it had to do with. Which I was not arguing about.
Yeah, I'm with you on the ridiculousness of that U2 hypothetical. I saw a comment on one of the Indy reviews published last night that said what Axl is doing would be like Paul McCartney calling Wings the Beatles. Yeah, I guess, if you're a complete and utter moron who ignores the facts regarding what happend with GN'R. The fact is this: GN'R never ended, and all the members did not leave at once.
The band changed when Steven was replaced with Matt because they are completely different drummers. The band changed when one of the co-founders along with Axl, Izzy, left the band. Yet, they continued on without, IMO, the most important member in the band's history other than Axl. Then Slash left and they continued on with Duff. Duff actually played with Robin Finck. Then Duff left.
You cannot ignore the facts surrounding the situation just to make an argument. Well, you can, but you'll be called out on it
Ali
#616 Re: Guns N' Roses » Steven Adler on a Guns N' Roses Hall of Fame Reunion » 707 weeks ago
Axlin08 wrote:I feel sad for Steven that he seemingly hasn't moved past 1990. He still seems MAJORLY hung up over that whole ordeal. And I think it's because he internally blames himself, then projects that onto Axl.
I agree...but then I also think he's human you know. I mean he grew up with Slash - two fucked up kids who dreamed of being rockstars..then they made it happen...then he fucked it up....honest to god I don't think I'd ever get over it either.
Especially cos I hold fault in EVERYONE in GNR...no saints in this band...so if you are steven you can spend a life time blaming yourself for your drugs, or slash for not having your back, or Axl for his ways, or managment but then you know you are a junkie...it's a headfuck.
misterID wrote:When he talked about a "final" show instead of a reunion, that helped him out a bit.
Agreed...although as a fan...a one-off show is semi-pointless to me. What will it achieve? They will play songs they have done thousands of times before except 25 years on - and there's always the risk that the pressure causes Steve to get on drugs, or Axl's having a bad night with his new voice...or something goes wrong...making one night of anything in GNR land is risky...as you don't know which band you'll get - sometimes they're the best of all time, but other nights it just doesn't take.
I think if any reunion happens it will be one-off shows - as that way Izzy doesnt have to comit to much, Slash doesn't have to spend a lifetime worrying about how Axl may not show up, and Axl can minimise exposure in general and keep himself in the zone....but as a fan I'd love to see them record rather than do anything else....in the studio there will be none of the "maybe it wont work that night" factor...and it would create something new and timeless that's eventually far more valuable than a boot of a new show would be. But that won't happen!
Bono wrote:I've always gotten the psuedo intellect vibe from Axl. I'm not saying Axl's a dummy but I just dont' but this "extremely intelligent" thing that others seem to think. And given his history of how things have been dealt with I can't help but think the guy is just of average intelligence who happens to have money and be in a position of authority surrounded by a lot of "yes men"
I dunno.. to me the way things go down in GNR land makes me wonder if he's one of those people who's insane-smart. Like in straight intelligence IQ he'd get a seriously good result, but then fails at lots of normal regular things. I have several friends like that - can't cross the street but can do advanced math, or they can write amazing things but burn down their own house because they didn't consider it was a bad idea to leave 1000 candles on while going to the movies. That sort of thing.
I guess i think in his interviews I see a person who is highly measured and analytical and particular about his meanings, and then I listen to his lyrics and for the most part I see them as quite sophisticated articticly. Sure there's the rant songs or whatever...but there's also a deep thinking and really facinating perspective that runs through GNR works...and to me it's only something that an intelligent person would write.
So to me, he's a very smart man - who also has an emotional side that causes him to sometimes act in ways that make it seem like he isn't.
But of course I don't know him...that's just what i percieve from his music and his interviews.
Agreed with the perception of Axl as being measured and analytical in his words and explanations. Also, agreed about how his actions in the heat of the moment may color that perception for some. That's why it's so hard to make a real assessment of someone you don't know at all, and instead only know of in bits and pieces with no personal interaction.
Ali
#617 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N Roses OFFICIALLY inducted into Rock n Roll Hall of Fame » 707 weeks ago
-D- wrote:http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ … d-20111207
Great Adler interview. Fucking guy makes a lot of sense.
Besides the fact that he comes across pathetic every time he talks about this stuff, I do think he's right about them owing it to the fans. I don't buy the argument that they don't owe us a damn thing. They wouldn't be millionaires without the fans buying their music in huge numbers over the years.
I don't think they owe us a reunion performance at all. If they want to do it, then they should do it. They shouldn't do it because other people want them to, or because they feel it's expected of them.
Ali
#618 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N Roses OFFICIALLY inducted into Rock n Roll Hall of Fame » 707 weeks ago
madagas wrote:Matt and Dizzy had ZERO writing credits on the Illusions...the definition of hired hands. Original 5.....that is all.
Yeah but they played on the albums and toured with the band when they were at its peak. I'd give you Gilby Clarke as a hired hand, but I don't hold Matt and Dizzy in that same regard.
Again, I could see it going any way. But if I had to rank it, it'd be the original 5, Dizzy would be in the 6 spot, Matt 7th, and Gilby 8th. Tommy comes in at number 9. Actually now that I think about it, Tommy and others might factor in higher than Gilby. Not Matt and Dizzy though.
I would put Tommy and Dizzy both above Gilby and Matt.
Ali
#619 Re: Guns N' Roses » Camden, NJ - Susquehanna Bank Center (Nov. 26, 2011) » 708 weeks ago
Christ, I can't believe people are actually discussing Axl's hat choices.
Ali
#620 Re: Guns N' Roses » Albany, NY - Times Union Center (Nov 23, 2011) *CANCELLED* » 709 weeks ago
russtcb wrote:I really feel like this might be a "low ticket sales" cancellation.
This
Nobody bought tix. Or not enough. Stay tuned for more of these situations in the future.
Not trying to be negative, because it's a great show to see, but it's currently way overbooked right now. I'm hoping west coast fans don't lose out a THIRD time. Lofton just might stage a riot himself.
It's impossible to say for certain without knowing the numbers. As far as being overbooked, I don't see it at all on the West Coast. They one show in Vegas, one in Seattle and one in LA. That's not overbooking.
Ali