This is Guns N' Roses-here's why.

[ThinkAboutYou]

I love both versions of GNR

Basically I believe the version from 1985-1991 is Guns N Roses and the version 1996-2010 is NEW GNR

I still love the new band the music is awesome

i'm just saying they aren't the same thing it's like calling lemonade and coke the same thing when clearly they are different

i never said they were the same thing. you have to understand, as a musician, you are ultimately a product of everything you take in. over this many years, that's going to be a lot of different shit. so the band is a living organism and it evolves, simple as that. When a baby rhino grows up, it's still a rhino. Why do people have this preconception that a band is a static thing that will fit neatly in a box? it makes no fucking sense. granted, music is deemed a product by society as a whole, but it's not fucking Colgate where you expect 100% tube to tube consistency. If the Beatles or Zeppelin had continued to release the same album over and over, they would've been boring and not had the impact they have had. case closed. next?

Yeah but 4/5 of the band left so they didn't evolve they were replaced so clearly different band

bullshit. GN"R has been around a long time and have a legacy. So have the Yankees. Year after year, they trot out a new line-up, maybe win a title, maybe not. but it's still the yankees. now if we have to get all semantic on this, Axl owns the name. period. but I won't throw that card in because I can back my arguments up without it. You have a very, very limited perspective about music. probably about reality as well, but that's for another time. peace.

I guess you think the new doors is the doors? Queen with Paul Rodgers is Queen? Inxs without Micheal Hutchense is Inxs ?

Since they all are operating using the original names

This ain't no baseball team it's meant to be a band

Edited February 13, 2010 by ThinkAboutYou

[bax]

I love both versions of GNR

Basically I believe the version from 1985-1991 is Guns N Roses and the version 1996-2010 is NEW GNR

I still love the new band the music is awesome

i'm just saying they aren't the same thing it's like calling lemonade and coke the same thing when clearly they are different

i never said they were the same thing. you have to understand, as a musician, you are ultimately a product of everything you take in. over this many years, that's going to be a lot of different shit. so the band is a living organism and it evolves, simple as that. When a baby rhino grows up, it's still a rhino. Why do people have this preconception that a band is a static thing that will fit neatly in a box? it makes no fucking sense. granted, music is deemed a product by society as a whole, but it's not fucking Colgate where you expect 100% tube to tube consistency. If the Beatles or Zeppelin had continued to release the same album over and over, they would've been boring and not had the impact they have had. case closed. next?

Yeah but 4/5 of the band left so they didn't evolve they were replaced so clearly different band

bullshit. GN"R has been around a long time and have a legacy. So have the Yankees. Year after year, they trot out a new line-up, maybe win a title, maybe not. but it's still the yankees. now if we have to get all semantic on this, Axl owns the name. period. but I won't throw that card in because I can back my arguments up without it. You have a very, very limited perspective about music. probably about reality as well, but that's for another time. peace.

I guess you think the new doors is the doors? Queen with Paul Rodgers is Queen? Inxs without Micheal Hutchense is Inxs ?

Since they all are operating using the original names

um, no. Jim Morrison wrote the Doors lyrics and pretty much defined the band. Same for Freddie and Queen. and Michael. those revival-type bands are outright prostitutes, plain and simple. GN'R is a rock band. they do not write material to cater to the mainstream, never have, never will. those acts all made cynical attempts ro cash in on their dead frontmen. not even close to the same thing.

alright, I have some things to do. don't interpret my silence overnight as an admission of defeat by any of you. i just have a cd to finish by Monday and have to sleep sometime. anyone says anything new and valid, I'll get to it tomorrow. but i'm pretty bored with this shit as of now. nighters. peace.

[maXx]

I love both versions of GNR

Basically I believe the version from 1985-1991 is Guns N Roses and the version 1996-2010 is NEW GNR

I still love the new band the music is awesome

i'm just saying they aren't the same thing it's like calling lemonade and coke the same thing when clearly they are different

i never said they were the same thing. you have to understand, as a musician, you are ultimately a product of everything you take in. over this many years, that's going to be a lot of different shit. so the band is a living organism and it evolves, simple as that. When a baby rhino grows up, it's still a rhino. Why do people have this preconception that a band is a static thing that will fit neatly in a box? it makes no fucking sense. granted, music is deemed a product by society as a whole, but it's not fucking Colgate where you expect 100% tube to tube consistency. If the Beatles or Zeppelin had continued to release the same album over and over, they would've been boring and not had the impact they have had. case closed. next?

Yeah but 4/5 of the band left so they didn't evolve they were replaced so clearly different band

bullshit. GN"R has been around a long time and have a legacy. So have the Yankees. Year after year, they trot out a new line-up, maybe win a title, maybe not. but it's still the yankees. now if we have to get all semantic on this, Axl owns the name. period. but I won't throw that card in because I can back my arguments up without it. You have a very, very limited perspective about music. probably about reality as well, but that's for another time. peace.

you're just changing the shape of the box so the peg will fit.. and you're condescending.

[Jackie Moon]

except i think people saying "its not guns n roses" is incredibly childish. you have nothing to base that on besides your own personal feelings of what gnr is. objectively speaking it IS guns n' roses regardless of how much you kick and scream. if you want to say "i dont feel its guns n roses", yeah i can understand that. but to say "its NOT guns n roses" is ridiculous.

wikipedia says its gnr so its gnr. deal with it.

Izzy Stradlin, co-founder of GNR, must be incredibly childish because he stated in an interview that Axl's band is "obviously not Guns N'Roses."

ill link him to wikipedia.

chinese democracy says guns n' roses on the front.

sorry man.

[ThinkAboutYou]

I love both versions of GNR

Basically I believe the version from 1985-1991 is Guns N Roses and the version 1996-2010 is NEW GNR

I still love the new band the music is awesome

i'm just saying they aren't the same thing it's like calling lemonade and coke the same thing when clearly they are different

i never said they were the same thing. you have to understand, as a musician, you are ultimately a product of everything you take in. over this many years, that's going to be a lot of different shit. so the band is a living organism and it evolves, simple as that. When a baby rhino grows up, it's still a rhino. Why do people have this preconception that a band is a static thing that will fit neatly in a box? it makes no fucking sense. granted, music is deemed a product by society as a whole, but it's not fucking Colgate where you expect 100% tube to tube consistency. If the Beatles or Zeppelin had continued to release the same album over and over, they would've been boring and not had the impact they have had. case closed. next?

Yeah but 4/5 of the band left so they didn't evolve they were replaced so clearly different band

bullshit. GN"R has been around a long time and have a legacy. So have the Yankees. Year after year, they trot out a new line-up, maybe win a title, maybe not. but it's still the yankees. now if we have to get all semantic on this, Axl owns the name. period. but I won't throw that card in because I can back my arguments up without it. You have a very, very limited perspective about music. probably about reality as well, but that's for another time. peace.

I guess you think the new doors is the doors? Queen with Paul Rodgers is Queen? Inxs without Micheal Hutchense is Inxs ?

Since they all are operating using the original names

um, no. Jim Morrison wrote the Doors lyrics and pretty much defined the band. Same for Freddie and Queen. and Michael. those revival-type bands are outright prostitutes, plain and simple. GN'R is a rock band. they do not write material to cater to the mainstream, never have, never will. those acts all made cynical attempts ro cash in on their dead frontmen. not even close to the same thing.

alright, I have some things to do. don't interpret my silence overnight as an admission of defeat by any of you. i just have a cd to finish by Monday and have to sleep sometime. anyone says anything new and valid, I'll get to it tomorrow. but i'm pretty bored with this shit as of now. nighters. peace.

NEW GNR's music is still awesome but to think the bands are the same is astounding

i'm seeing AC/DC again tonight Brian Johnson is a great replacement for the original Bon Scott

Edited February 13, 2010 by ThinkAboutYou

[tomazrui]

Amen.

Edited February 13, 2010 by tomazrui

[_Simon]

This is Guns N' Roses. A name is just a name, the current lineup can play the AFD songs just as good as the band who brought AFD to fame. The name is not being "ruined" by the band itself, but by the media and public opinions. What matters at the end of the day is that quality music is being written/performed by the band.

Edited February 13, 2010 by _Simon

[GET OFF AXLS BACK]

This is not GnR, now i know that makes me sound like a hater but let me clarify.

This is an incarnation of GnR, a great version but now i view GnR like Windows, no one package is the product but an evolution of it.Personally a version without Slash will never be the one definitive version but it is a damn good consolation prize

[dancingwasteland]

Of course this is GN'R, just like plenty of other bands that have changed lineups to various degrees are still those bands. It's legitimate to lose interest in a group if it changes too much for your taste or you don't like a new direction - but if that does happen I would recommend just finding new bands to enjoy instead of obsessing about the way things used to be on internet message boards.

[Chris1989]

1991 (USE YOUR ILLUSION)

MANCHESTER UNITED:

GK 1 Peter Schmeichel

MF 16 Ryan Giggs

RB 3 Denis Irwin

CB 4 Steve Bruce

CM 5 Neil Webb

CB 6 Gary Pallister

RM 7 Andrei Kanchelskis

CM 8 Paul Ince

CF 9 Brian McClair

CF 10 Mark Hughes

LM 11 Clayton Blackmore

2008 (CHINESE DEMOCRACY)

MANCHESTER UNITED:

GK 1 Edwin van der Sar

RB 2 Gary Neville

CB 5 Rio Ferdinand

CB 15 Nemanja Vidić

LB 3 Patrice Evra

RM 24 Darren Fletcher

CM 18 Paul Scholes

CM 22 John O'Shea

LM 17 Nani

SS 11 Ryan Giggs

CF 32 Carlos Tévez

So on the basis that "Guns N Roses isn't Guns N Roses now" then we can also say that nobody should support Manchester United Football Club because in 2008, only one player remains from their 1991 line up?

[GET OFF AXLS BACK]

1991 (USE YOUR ILLUSION)

MANCHESTER UNITED:

GK 1 Peter Schmeichel

MF 16 Ryan Giggs

RB 3 Denis Irwin

CB 4 Steve Bruce

CM 5 Neil Webb

CB 6 Gary Pallister

RM 7 Andrei Kanchelskis

CM 8 Paul Ince

CF 9 Brian McClair

CF 10 Mark Hughes

LM 11 Clayton Blackmore

2008 (CHINESE DEMOCRACY)

MANCHESTER UNITED:

GK 1 Edwin van der Sar

RB 2 Gary Neville

CB 5 Rio Ferdinand

CB 15 Nemanja Vidić

LB 3 Patrice Evra

RM 24 Darren Fletcher

CM 18 Paul Scholes

CM 22 John O'Shea

LM 17 Nani

SS 11 Ryan Giggs

CF 32 Carlos Tévez

So on the basis that "Guns N Roses isn't Guns N Roses now" then we can also say that nobody should support Manchester United Football Club because in 2008, only one player remains from their 1991 line up?

I will need some time to think that through but instinct tells me that's a damn good analogy

[axlfan88]

except i think people saying "its not guns n roses" is incredibly childish. you have nothing to base that on besides your own personal feelings of what gnr is. objectively speaking it IS guns n' roses regardless of how much you kick and scream. if you want to say "i dont feel its guns n roses", yeah i can understand that. but to say "its NOT guns n roses" is ridiculous.

wikipedia says its gnr so its gnr. deal with it.

Izzy Stradlin, co-founder of GNR, must be incredibly childish because he stated in an interview that Axl's band is "obviously not Guns N'Roses."

ill link him to wikipedia.

chinese democracy says guns n' roses on the front.

sorry man.

By the same occasion, tell him also that he is incredibly childish.

Thanks.

[The Glow Inc.]

If you think it is GnR, then it is GnR.

If you think it isn't GnR, then it isn't GnR.

If you think it sounds good but isn't GnR, then enjoy the music and call the band something else.

If you think it sounds like a horesepile and isn't GnR, then it isn't GnR and the band sounds like horesepile.

Me, I don't care whether it is or isn't GnR because it's my favourite band right now ( and it has Bumblefoot in it ).

[Jackie Moon]

except i think people saying "its not guns n roses" is incredibly childish. you have nothing to base that on besides your own personal feelings of what gnr is. objectively speaking it IS guns n' roses regardless of how much you kick and scream. if you want to say "i dont feel its guns n roses", yeah i can understand that. but to say "its NOT guns n roses" is ridiculous.

wikipedia says its gnr so its gnr. deal with it.

Izzy Stradlin, co-founder of GNR, must be incredibly childish because he stated in an interview that Axl's band is "obviously not Guns N'Roses."

ill link him to wikipedia.

chinese democracy says guns n' roses on the front.

sorry man.

By the same occasion, tell him also that he is incredibly childish.

Thanks.

for the record, im not arguing wtih you. i agree, its not the same as the original guns n roses, and i feel weird calling it guns n roses. personally i go with new gnr, i think thats our best compermise.

im just saying "its not guns n roses" is a false statement as the cover of CD says guns n roses. objectively, it is guns n roses. so people can kick and scream "its not guns n roses" all they want but in the end, it is.

[Orsys]

This is an incarnation of GnR, a great version but now i view GnR like Windows, no one package is the product but an evolution of it.

I agree with this. But it is GnR and continues to be GnR, because GnR, for most of its 25 years, has been an band whose sound has evolved. Those who stayed at one sound, broke off and continued with that sound elsewhere. Others came in that aligned with where the sound was at that point in time.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. The Slash time was fun, the DJ time is fun. I don't lose.

[dimitrisaxl]

Different people have different ideas of what GnR is. Personally, I don't call this lineup Guns N Roses, I usually call it New GnR or something along those lines. That doesn't mean I don't like this lineup.

1985-1996(ish) is GnR to me. If its not for you, that's cool. Just don't expect everyone to call this lineup Guns N Roses.

1985-1996 there were a lot line up changes you know... But you still call them GNR. Why not these days?

[plonker88]

To me it is because of the music. When I first heard about what Axl was doing I was as sceptical as everyone else. But I figured that I am a fan beacuse of the music, they are my favourite band because of the music. In light of that I decided that I would consider this band as Guns N' Roses if, to me, the music was as brilliant if not better than the music of the original line up. The fact the whole of Chinese Democracy is in my top 25 most played on Itunes tellls you how that decision panned out.

Edited February 13, 2010 by plonker88

[karlossacanell]

This is not a touring band, this is Guns N' Roses wait and see

Sure this is GNR, for me it´s ridiculous there are people yet saying is Axl´s solo project

Edited February 13, 2010 by karlossacanell

[Sweersa]

This is Guns N' Roses. Anyone who doesn't see or understands that really needs to leave because they are holding those of us with brains and common sense back.

[GET OFF AXLS BACK]

This is Guns N' Roses. Anyone who doesn't see or understands that really needs to leave because they are holding those of us with brains and common sense back.

If you think people with differing views is people holding you back then im sorry but clearly you are doing a great job of holding yourself back

[Guest Satanisk_Slakt]

To me Guns N' Roses is a band, and not just one persons will and vision, but that's just me. I would rather see Axl tour with this band as something else than GN'R, but we got what we got, and have to do the best of the situation. I wouldn't win anything on saying "it's not GN'R, fuck this shit, I'll boycott it." Axl wouldn't lose much money on that and I would miss an experience that I would regret that I didn't take.

I look forward to see Axl and his band in summer.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Satanisk_Slakt

[Orsys]

This is Guns N' Roses. Anyone who doesn't see or understands that really needs to leave because they are holding those of us with brains and common sense back.

The great thing about the Internet and forums is that anyone can join the debate, and hopefully just provide support for their positions. But don't leave. The community gets boring when people leave it. I think brains and common sense can survive a difference in viewpoints. Don't you?

[axlfan88]

except i think people saying "its not guns n roses" is incredibly childish. you have nothing to base that on besides your own personal feelings of what gnr is. objectively speaking it IS guns n' roses regardless of how much you kick and scream. if you want to say "i dont feel its guns n roses", yeah i can understand that. but to say "its NOT guns n roses" is ridiculous.

wikipedia says its gnr so its gnr. deal with it.

Izzy Stradlin, co-founder of GNR, must be incredibly childish because he stated in an interview that Axl's band is "obviously not Guns N'Roses."

ill link him to wikipedia.

chinese democracy says guns n' roses on the front.

sorry man.

By the same occasion, tell him also that he is incredibly childish.

Thanks.

for the record, im not arguing wtih you. i agree, its not the same as the original guns n roses, and i feel weird calling it guns n roses. personally i go with new gnr, i think thats our best compermise.

im just saying "its not guns n roses" is a false statement as the cover of CD says guns n roses. objectively, it is guns n roses. so people can kick and scream "its not guns n roses" all they want but in the end, it is.

Yes, the cover of CD says Guns N'Roses, but that album didn't do well in the charts precisely because people knew it wasn't really Guns N'Roses.

[ChapelRoses]

Sucks for them, might be true might not, but their stubbornness to look past it kept them from from some good music

[GET OFF AXLS BACK]

except i think people saying "its not guns n roses" is incredibly childish. you have nothing to base that on besides your own personal feelings of what gnr is. objectively speaking it IS guns n' roses regardless of how much you kick and scream. if you want to say "i dont feel its guns n roses", yeah i can understand that. but to say "its NOT guns n roses" is ridiculous.

wikipedia says its gnr so its gnr. deal with it.

Izzy Stradlin, co-founder of GNR, must be incredibly childish because he stated in an interview that Axl's band is "obviously not Guns N'Roses."

ill link him to wikipedia.

chinese democracy says guns n' roses on the front.

sorry man.

By the same occasion, tell him also that he is incredibly childish.

Thanks.

for the record, im not arguing wtih you. i agree, its not the same as the original guns n roses, and i feel weird calling it guns n roses. personally i go with new gnr, i think thats our best compermise.

im just saying "its not guns n roses" is a false statement as the cover of CD says guns n roses. objectively, it is guns n roses. so people can kick and scream "its not guns n roses" all they want but in the end, it is.

Yes, the cover of CD says Guns N'Roses, but that album didn't do well in the charts precisely because people knew it wasn't really Guns N'Roses.

I would argue it had more to do with a lack of relevance than who was in the band.