What makes this current lineup more of a band than other artists who use backup bands?

[Rustycage]

What makes this current lineup more of a band than other artists who use backup bands?

The topic has nothing to do with the name but instead the difference between solo artist and a "band."

I know you were itching to start bashing former members but you were too eager. It's irrelevant.

This topic has been posted a million times and is redundant. I guess people are just too lazy (or attention seeking) to simply bump the one of 100's of existing identical topic threads.

Start bashing members? You were the one who started bashing, hypocrite. Not my fault you took Slashole personally, lmao.

How did I bash any one? Did THAT truth sting? The hit dog hollers?

What I said is true in regards to it being a solo act. What you said is irrelevant.

[Apollo]

I realize some will be pissed at the question, but I don't mean for it to be as loaded as it may sound. This current gnr lineup is uber talented and seems like some really cool guys, but they have written / recorded very little together... CREATED very little together. Some on this forum go nuts dissing the previous lineup and proclaiming the current dudes as the real gnr.

Before van halen got back together, I saw David lee Roth play with an amazing band. Guitarist could easily kick ass on anything Eddie ever did. Spare me the simple "van halen is band member names" explanation, and tell me how nu gnr differs from this? Or from Roger waters band?

To be clear, I'm not hating on the current, talented, really cool guys. Just not seeing the pov of this who diss the old lineup and proclaim this group as the real gnr.

Pubes.

Phenominal Topic. You should email Dexter.

A group of people only found on internet forums desperately want it to be, that's why.

And a group of people like you, whine that the current lineup shouldn't be called Guns N' Roses because they have a boner for Slash and are still pissed off at Axl for no good reason.

Get a life and grow up, your first girlfriend isn't coming back either!

Because he has a different opinion than you, you feel the need to insult him? Weird.

Sometimes people just have different opinions on topics. It doesn't mean they have a boner for Slash, they are mad at Axl for "no good reason", they need to get a life and grow up? And what does their first girlfriend have to do with anything?

Comments like yours are immature and do nothing but add negativity to the forum. And really, cast a black eye on all GnR fans.

This is a valid topic to discuss.

Axl is the only member left of the band that made GnR what they are today. Your Axl Worshipping shouldn't prevent you from seeing a topic with an unbiased eye.

If you can't contribute to topics intelligently and respectfully to those you disagree with, maybe you need to "group up"

Oh, and I saw David Lee Roth after he left Van Halen. His set consisted of some of his solo work and all the old VH classic songs.

Since he helped write all the VH classic songs.......since he was part of the original VH band...........does that mean he could have called his band Van Halen??????? Nobody in their right mind would agree with that. But yet, Axl is doing the same thing.

Wrong, Axl is doing the same as Van Halen without Dave. When you are actually there to come up with the name of the band, you have a little bit more of a right to continue using it. Especially when it contains your name.

I'm not a Van Halen historian........was DLR not part of the original band? Was there another singer before him?

I respectfully disagree with your post though about the name. I think having your name be part of the band is really irrelevent. Using that logic, if they had called the band Welcome instead of GnR, then you wouldn't care because it didn't have the name "rose" in it (Or van halen). Having a band member's name just makes it more personal.

But how about this, then.

Van Halen breaks up.

ALEX Van HALEN starts a new band - and keeps using the name Van Halen. He gets an entirely new band. Then replaces half of that new band. And under the name VH - still tours.

Eddie Van Halen, DLR, Michael Anthony grab a new singer and drummer and they go out on tour and release albums.

Would you think that is OK?

Personally, I could not care less about Axl using the GnR name.

It's just a name - it doesn't create the songs.

His keeping the name is extremely overblown on this forum, imo.

To me it isn't a big deal.

The only reason I even comment on it is because how ridiculous the worshippers get about it. Some idiot posted that Slash just wasn't smart enough to keep the name. Their anger and hatred towards Slash and people who aren't Axl worshippers has turned some posters into lunatics on this forum. All they do is make negative post after negative post insulting the old band, insulting others who disagree with them. Heck, you aren't allowed to simply be a Slash fan, or to question anything Axl does. If you do, then you are a bitter Slashole fan who needs to get a life!!!!!! I couldn't imagine going through life being that intolerant and close-minded towards people who had different opinions than I do. Seriously, those guys bring more negativity to the forum than the few people who come here just to bash Axl. These people aren't capable of having an intelligent conversation about GnR.

[saber_]

What makes this current lineup more of a band than other artists who use backup bands?

The topic has nothing to do with the name but instead the difference between solo artist and a "band."

I know you were itching to start bashing former members but you were too eager. It's irrelevant.

This topic has been posted a million times and is redundant. I guess people are just too lazy (or attention seeking) to simply bump the one of 100's of existing identical topic threads.

Start bashing members? You were the one who started bashing, hypocrite. Not my fault you took Slashole personally, lmao.

How did I bash any one? Did THAT truth sting? The hit dog hollers?

What I said is true in regards to it being a solo act. What you said is irrelevant.

You bashed me with your youtube video. I always love when assholes like you accuse me of being this grand insulter, but the thread clearly shows you instigating. The truth hurts, doesn't it. Kind of like Slash signing the name over to Axl like a dumbass.

[Rustycage]

What makes this current lineup more of a band than other artists who use backup bands?

The topic has nothing to do with the name but instead the difference between solo artist and a "band."

I know you were itching to start bashing former members but you were too eager. It's irrelevant.

This topic has been posted a million times and is redundant. I guess people are just too lazy (or attention seeking) to simply bump the one of 100's of existing identical topic threads.

Start bashing members? You were the one who started bashing, hypocrite. Not my fault you took Slashole personally, lmao.

How did I bash any one? Did THAT truth sting? The hit dog hollers?

What I said is true in regards to it being a solo act. What you said is irrelevant.

You bashed me with your youtube video. I always love when assholes like you accuse me of being this grand insulter, but the thread clearly shows you instigating. The truth hurts, doesn't it. Kind of like Slash signing the name over to Axl like a dumbass.

You said I started bashing. I posted the video after you called people slashholes. Durp.

[Dazey]

Are you seriously saying that any band seizes to be a band as soon as they step out of the recording studio?

You need to first step into the recording studio before you can step out of it! Also Ron added a couple of guitar parts to songs that were practically finished years before so let's not pretend he had any real hand in Chinese Democracy.

[SoulMonster]

Are you seriously saying that any band seizes to be a band as soon as they step out of the recording studio?

You need to first step into the recording studio before you can step out of it! Also Ron added a couple of guitar parts to songs that were practically finished years before so let's not pretend he had any real hand in Chinese Democracy.

He had an influence at least by adding lead guitars. So all members, except Dj, was in the studio and recorded parts for CD and some were major writers for songs on that record (Axl, Chris, Tommy, Dizzy). Doesn't this make it a band? Will a band who replaces a member stop being a band until they have released something new? And what about all bands who have never released a record yet, what are they?? Are you using these harsh criteria for what comprise a band on other groups of musicians who play and write music together, also? Or are you just this unfair with GN'R?

[Dazey]

Are you seriously saying that any band seizes to be a band as soon as they step out of the recording studio?

You need to first step into the recording studio before you can step out of it! Also Ron added a couple of guitar parts to songs that were practically finished years before so let's not pretend he had any real hand in Chinese Democracy.

He had an influence at least by adding lead guitars. So all members, except Dj, was in the studio and recorded parts for CD and some were major writers for songs on that record (Axl, Chris, Tommy, Dizzy). Doesn't this make it a band? Will a band who replaces a member stop being a band until they have released something new? And what about all bands who have never released a record yet, what are they?? Are you using these harsh criteria for what comprise a band on other groups of musicians who play and write music together, also? Or are you just this unfair with GN'R?

The difference is that we've not had a settled line-up write, record and release a record since 1991. A couple of changes aren't a big deal and if we'd seen activity and new music every four or five years since 91 there wouldn't be the same perception. As it is I'm waiting to see what these guys are capable of before I judge them as a proper band.

[The Sandman]

Talent has brought them together, but I think the fact that they purely enjoy it, and the company of each other, helps them feed off each other.

[Damn_Smooth]

I realize some will be pissed at the question, but I don't mean for it to be as loaded as it may sound. This current gnr lineup is uber talented and seems like some really cool guys, but they have written / recorded very little together... CREATED very little together. Some on this forum go nuts dissing the previous lineup and proclaiming the current dudes as the real gnr.

Before van halen got back together, I saw David lee Roth play with an amazing band. Guitarist could easily kick ass on anything Eddie ever did. Spare me the simple "van halen is band member names" explanation, and tell me how nu gnr differs from this? Or from Roger waters band?

To be clear, I'm not hating on the current, talented, really cool guys. Just not seeing the pov of this who diss the old lineup and proclaim this group as the real gnr.

Pubes.

Phenominal Topic. You should email Dexter.

A group of people only found on internet forums desperately want it to be, that's why.

And a group of people like you, whine that the current lineup shouldn't be called Guns N' Roses because they have a boner for Slash and are still pissed off at Axl for no good reason.

Get a life and grow up, your first girlfriend isn't coming back either!

Because he has a different opinion than you, you feel the need to insult him? Weird.

Sometimes people just have different opinions on topics. It doesn't mean they have a boner for Slash, they are mad at Axl for "no good reason", they need to get a life and grow up? And what does their first girlfriend have to do with anything?

Comments like yours are immature and do nothing but add negativity to the forum. And really, cast a black eye on all GnR fans.

This is a valid topic to discuss.

Axl is the only member left of the band that made GnR what they are today. Your Axl Worshipping shouldn't prevent you from seeing a topic with an unbiased eye.

If you can't contribute to topics intelligently and respectfully to those you disagree with, maybe you need to "group up"

Oh, and I saw David Lee Roth after he left Van Halen. His set consisted of some of his solo work and all the old VH classic songs.

Since he helped write all the VH classic songs.......since he was part of the original VH band...........does that mean he could have called his band Van Halen??????? Nobody in their right mind would agree with that. But yet, Axl is doing the same thing.

Wrong, Axl is doing the same as Van Halen without Dave. When you are actually there to come up with the name of the band, you have a little bit more of a right to continue using it. Especially when it contains your name.

I'm not a Van Halen historian........was DLR not part of the original band? Was there another singer before him?

I respectfully disagree with your post though about the name. I think having your name be part of the band is really irrelevent. Using that logic, if they had called the band Welcome instead of GnR, then you wouldn't care because it didn't have the name "rose" in it (Or van halen). Having a band member's name just makes it more personal.

But how about this, then.

Van Halen breaks up.

ALEX Van HALEN starts a new band - and keeps using the name Van Halen. He gets an entirely new band. Then replaces half of that new band. And under the name VH - still tours.

Eddie Van Halen, DLR, Michael Anthony grab a new singer and drummer and they go out on tour and release albums.

Would you think that is OK?

Personally, I could not care less about Axl using the GnR name.

It's just a name - it doesn't create the songs.

His keeping the name is extremely overblown on this forum, imo.

To me it isn't a big deal.

The only reason I even comment on it is because how ridiculous the worshippers get about it. Some idiot posted that Slash just wasn't smart enough to keep the name. Their anger and hatred towards Slash and people who aren't Axl worshippers has turned some posters into lunatics on this forum. All they do is make negative post after negative post insulting the old band, insulting others who disagree with them. Heck, you aren't allowed to simply be a Slash fan, or to question anything Axl does. If you do, then you are a bitter Slashole fan who needs to get a life!!!!!! I couldn't imagine going through life being that intolerant and close-minded towards people who had different opinions than I do. Seriously, those guys bring more negativity to the forum than the few people who come here just to bash Axl. These people aren't capable of having an intelligent conversation about GnR.

I'm not even a Van Halen fan, much less a historian; so I don't know the answer to your question. I honestly don't know the

members well enough to know if that would make sense. Was Alex an original member of the band? If so, that would be fine with me.

There are bands out there with no original members, so whoever gets the name keeps it, as far as I can concern myself with the issue.

In my opinion, this band is the absolute best band on the planet right now. They could call themselves The Beatles, and I wouldn't care.

[kanudo19]

have u seen the band live this year ?? they re interacting with each other, the band has an awsome tight sound, they re all taking part in the show not just "backing" axl. this is band is more close than it was in '10 .. its awsome, so wht makes this current lineup more of a band and not backup band its that they are a BAND. they are guns n roses

[The Glow Inc.]

The fact that Tommy, Pitman, Fortus, Dizzy, BBF and Frank have been on each other's albums for years, and for some of them since even before they were in GnR ?

[SoulMonster]

As it is I'm waiting to see what these guys are capable of before I judge them as a proper band.

So now they need to not only record together to be a band, it is not enough to merely play music together -- sorry all garage "bands" waiting on recording your music, you are now just a "group"! -- they also need to impress you with their output before you deem to call them a "band". I find your definition of what a band is awfully subjective, inconsistent and complex. I think the normal definition, and the one I am using, is that a band is any group of musicians who play music together. Like a "band of musicians".

[Dazey]

As it is I'm waiting to see what these guys are capable of before I judge them as a proper band.

So now they need to not only record together to be a band, it is not enough to merely play music together -- sorry all garage "bands" waiting on recording your music, you are now just a "group"! -- they also need to impress you with their output before you deem to call them a "band". I find your definition of what a band is awfully subjective, inconsistent and complex. I think the normal definition, and the one I am using, is that a band is any group of musicians who play music together. Like a "band of musicians".

Well I'd be more inclined to accept that definition if it was a bunch of guys of near equal standing all contributing equally rather than one guy and his employees. Actually I'll go back on what I said slightly. Are they a band? Yeah they are but Axl's not a part of it.

[The Sandman]

As it is I'm waiting to see what these guys are capable of before I judge them as a proper band.

So now they need to not only record together to be a band, it is not enough to merely play music together -- sorry all garage "bands" waiting on recording your music, you are now just a "group"! -- they also need to impress you with their output before you deem to call them a "band". I find your definition of what a band is awfully subjective, inconsistent and complex. I think the normal definition, and the one I am using, is that a band is any group of musicians who play music together. Like a "band of musicians".

Well I'd be more inclined to accept that definition if it was a bunch of guys of near equal standing all contributing equally rather than one guy and his employees. Actually I'll go back on what I said slightly. Are they a band? Yeah they are but Axl's not a part of it.

I would've agreed in past - but now, more than ever, I really think that they are.

[SoulMonster]

As it is I'm waiting to see what these guys are capable of before I judge them as a proper band.

So now they need to not only record together to be a band, it is not enough to merely play music together -- sorry all garage "bands" waiting on recording your music, you are now just a "group"! -- they also need to impress you with their output before you deem to call them a "band". I find your definition of what a band is awfully subjective, inconsistent and complex. I think the normal definition, and the one I am using, is that a band is any group of musicians who play music together. Like a "band of musicians".

Well I'd be more inclined to accept that definition if it was a bunch of guys of near equal standing all contributing equally rather than one guy and his employees. Actually I'll go back on what I said slightly. Are they a band? Yeah they are but Axl's not a part of it.

Uhm, that definition I mentioned says nothing about the power structure of the band of musicians playing together.

I think you will find that many bands have one, two or three members with a lot more power than the others. Few bands have a flat structure where everybody has equal rights and power. In GN'R, Axl obviously own the name, has the vision and calls the shots. When it comes to the music, on the other hand, he certainly has veto but it really seems to be a collaborative effort with other members bringing in songs, influencing what will end up on the record, and contributing heavily both in writing and by adding their own skills as musicians -- just like any band should.

If you -- in your strong efforts to find a way to say that GN'R is not a band -- now are to demand that a band should have a flat power structure, or not have one person who controls the direction of the band, then you coincidentally rip away the band status of so many other groups who are bands to everyone else (and probably to you, too), just like you did previously with "musicians who haven't released anything yet" and "musicians whose output is not good enough for you". I think you are making this way too complicated and I don't trust for one second you extent your harsh criteria to any other groups of musicians besides GN'R, which again suggests you are trolling (well done, sir!) or inconsistent and unfair because you have some grudge with the current lineup (not so well done, sir!).

[Rustycage]

The main difference between a band and a solo artist would be the veto power lying with one individual. And a one man veto show is not the same as 2 or 3 in a band being the main contributors. Drummers usually don't write and Bassists are minimal. That 2/3 of the rhythm section are normally not considered to be the ones with the power.

So, in regards to the slang definition of "band" as opposed to a solo artist with revolving musicians playing to the artists wishes, this isn't a "band." Unless you want to redefine solo artist, I don't see what is so debatable.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Rustycage

[Cosmo]

Since none of them have a say in anything when it comes to GnR other than deciding their solo spots, well, it's technically a backing band, yes. But... it's the only existing Guns N' Roses. Today, this is Guns N' Roses. Some people have a hard time dealing with that fact.

[spunko12345]

What makes this current lineup more of a band than other artists who use backup bands?

The topic has nothing to do with the name but instead the difference between solo artist and a "band."

I know you were itching to start bashing former members but you were too eager. It's irrelevant.

This topic has been posted a million times and is redundant. I guess people are just too lazy (or attention seeking) to simply bump the one of 100's of existing identical topic threads.

Start bashing members? You were the one who started bashing, hypocrite. Not my fault you took Slashole personally, lmao.

How did I bash any one? Did THAT truth sting? The hit dog hollers?

What I said is true in regards to it being a solo act. What you said is irrelevant.

You bashed me with your youtube video. I always love when assholes like you accuse me of being this grand insulter, but the thread clearly shows you instigating. The truth hurts, doesn't it. Kind of like Slash signing the name over to Axl like a dumbass.

The funniest and simultaneously most pathetic thing I have ever read in all the years Ive been on this forum

Edited June 16, 2012 by spunko12345

[MB.]

They are a band, cause Axl said so.

(Personally as soon as this current band presents us new music, written mostly together, I will see them as such. Not easy to see them as a band, since Axl changes, or people are leaving, the band so often. But I really like this (back up) band, they are enjoying themselves very clearly on stage. Seems they really like eachother. I am curious were this could lead to. I really hope someday we will find out.)

[Patience 4 Axl]

have u seen the band live this year ?? they re interacting with each other, the band has an awsome tight sound, they re all taking part in the show not just "backing" axl. this is band is more close than it was in '10 .. its awsome, so wht makes this current lineup more of a band and not backup band its that they are a BAND. they are guns n roses

People have been saying this exact same thing since 2002. To pure Axl fans, every version is "tight". Every version is the "best". Not everyone has to drink the kool aid.

[spunko12345]

have u seen the band live this year ?? they re interacting with each other, the band has an awsome tight sound, they re all taking part in the show not just "backing" axl. this is band is more close than it was in '10 .. its awsome, so wht makes this current lineup more of a band and not backup band its that they are a BAND. they are guns n roses

People have been saying this exact same thing since 2002. To pure Axl fans, every version is "tight". Every version is the "best". Not everyone has to drink the kool aid.

I wish they would go back to the GNR of barely tolerating each other because that got us You Could Be Mine, Coma, Estranged, November Rain, Civil War, Yesterdays and Garden Of Eden.

GNR seems a bit slow n boring on the inspiration aspect when they are too focused on "interacting" with one another.

Edited June 16, 2012 by spunko12345

[Patience 4 Axl]

That's actually a pretty interesting point.

[stumbleine]

there's no interaction what so ever.they just play their part,night after night after night.

all the shows are choreographed identically.

it's an illusion.

[spunko12345]

That's actually a pretty interesting point.

It was a bang on point your right. One which im sure will get buried and forgotten about. Not for the first time im sure.

Despite how much theycouldn't function together in the 90's they still managed to record some classic songs, some mainstream some that were now clamouring for inclusion in 2012 setlists. And im not even talking about 80's Sunset Strip era Were all in It together street rat GNR.

A lot of fans seem to be more interested in how the new guys are getting along with each other. Personally I couildnt give a fucking shit, Im not a ass kissing fan and I dont care if Axl wants me as a fan or not I just like it when GNR makes awesome music. Its that simple.

Edited June 16, 2012 by spunko12345

[the rush]

The main difference between a band and a solo artist would be the veto power lying with one individual. And a one man veto show is not the same as 2 or 3 in a band being the main contributors. Drummers usually don't write and Bassists are minimal. That 2/3 of the rhythm section are normally not considered to be the ones with the power.

So, in regards to the slang definition of "band" as opposed to a solo artist with revolving musicians playing to the artists wishes, this isn't a "band." Unless you want to redefine solo artist, I don't see what is so debatable.

what are Annihilator and Megadeth then?