How do you decide what is GNR and what isn't? What makes something more GNR than something else?

[wasted]

If Axl is singing its GNR if not its Velvet Revolver.

[gunnari]

GNR is Axl's vision, nothing more and nothing less... if you think otherwise you are a fool.

[WhazUp]

To me Guns N' Roses - the guys in the 80's to early 90's - had this unique and unmistakable sound. That was due to the fact that the band was at least up until the late 90's a musical collaboration instead of one guy running the show. The Illusions lineup still had that sound even though it was slightly altered by a slight change in personnel but that vibe and uniqueness was ever so present.

This to me proves that GNR, or more specifically the GNR that wrote all of the chart topping tunes and was at one point one of the biggest rock acts ever, was not a "one man show" - it does not matter what combination of guys Axl puts together and it doesn't even matter that he calls it GNR. The fact is that unique sound that was very specific to the guys that made GNR a huge legendary entity hasn't been there since the early 90's. The people who say Axl always was GNR to me are completely off point

Calling something the same thing doesn't make the unique sound and combination of musicians the same. It just does not work that way....

Now I quite like the current lineup as well as any lineup Axl put together since 1997, but it just is not the same group of guys as the ones who were responsible for the band being so big in the first place - the band name is completely irrelevant to that fact.

Edited October 7, 2013 by WhazUp

[Bobbo]

Guns n roses was a very collaborative band, with at least core four of Axl, Izzy, Slash, and Duff. This isn't like the smashing pumpkins or megadeth where basically the frontman completely runs ship. Those above four added a lot of weight to the realms of songwriting, sound, and image, and the whole was always greater than the sum of its parts.

It stopped being gnr to me and for most of the masses when it came back strutting itself as "gnr" without any of the other essential ingredients that established it and gave the name the power it has today. It left the masses in July of '93 and slowly, but surely died during the rest if the 90s. Alternating one or two members while keeping the majority of people is one thing. Coming back as a completely different beast disguised as a familiar one is another, and doesn't work for such a "team effort" band like gnr.

As essential as Axl was to gnr, and even arguably the most essential, he wasn't the be all end all as time has proven. It just simply wasn't enough to legitimately carry on the "gnr" name without any of the others who made it whole. It walks different, it feels different, it functions different, and it talks different. It's different. Not necessarily inferior (although to me it is) or bad, but a different animal altogether. I would have had a lot more respect for Axl if he had realized that. Especially by now. Instead, he stubbornly chooses to live in denial.

So be it.

[BBA]

All of the shows I've been to since 2002 have had the same GN'R feel to me as the ones I attended in 93 and before.

I honestly don't believe you. Not for a second. I do believe that you are obviously fanatical when it comes to Axl Rose -- and that's your biz. But I don't believe for a second that the 2002 lineup had the same feel to you as the 1993 lineup. It was a completely different band for christ's sake. Even Axl didn't sound like Axl.

To believe what you just stated, I'd either have to come to the conclusion that you are completely delusional or a complete Axl fanatic. I don't question at all that you are the latter of the two.

Just out of curiosity, why not just be honest and say that you are fanatical when it comes to Axl Rose and that you'd be willing to accept anything he does as being GNR? Why make up something like "it felt the same" when there was next to no similarity at all? I'm honestly curious as to what you hope to gain?

Edited October 7, 2013 by BBA

[SweetRose]

For me it's pre 97,cause to me Guns-N-Roses is or was not just Axl Rose.And that is not a dig at Axl,cause he's my most favorite GN'R guy.

[RussTCB]

All of the shows I've been to since 2002 have had the same GN'R feel to me as the ones I attended in 93 and before.

I honestly don't believe you. Not for a second. I do believe that you are obviously fanatical when it comes to Axl Rose -- and that's your biz. But I don't believe for a second that the 2002 lineup had the same feel to you as the 1993 lineup. It was a completely different band for christ's sake. Even Axl didn't sound like Axl.

To believe what you just stated, I'd either have to come to the conclusion that you are completely delusional or a complete Axl fanatic. I don't question at all that you are the latter of the two.

Just out of curiosity, why not just be honest and say that you are fanatical when it comes to Axl Rose and that you'd be willing to accept anything he does as being GNR? Why make up something like "it felt the same" when there was next to no similarity at all? I'm honestly curious as to what you hope to gain?

I love that fact that some people simply cannot see where others are coming from.

I'm not being dishonest or delusional and I'm certain not a "complete Axl fanatic", I just happened to point out the fact that for me the shows in 2002 had the same feel as those in 1993 and before that I attended. See my avatar? That's my favorite guitarist to ever be in GN'R. When is the first time I saw him on stage in person with GN'R? 2002. So imagine seeing a band you love with a new guitar player for the first time and you just dig what he's doing. That's how the gig was brought to the same level as seeing line ups prior to that for me.

Also, this whole "You must have something to gain from an opinion" is such a tired angle.

[Graeme]

Bands change members, it happens... Fleetwood Mac in 1977 had one original member left. In Flames currently have no original members. It's not some unforgiveable transgression which only GNR is guilty of. Fair play if the member changes mean you don't enjoy it any more, but if that's the case don't hang around like a bad smell just to address the people who do enjoy it with a condescending superiority complex, implying that they are in some capacity musically retarded.

The changes in membership did not impede my enjoyment of any of the GNR shows I saw, nor the album, in the slightest. I still thought they were fucking brilliant, and if you choose to tell me that I should think otherwise because it's "not the same" for you, then you can quite frankly stick your opinion up your arse.

I can appreciate where some people are coming from when they say line-up changes make them lose interest, I have no interest in Killswitch Engage now Jesse Leach is singing for them again instead of Howard Jones (despite that being a reforming of the "original" line-up) difference is I don't go onto the KsE forums and tell all the thousands of fans who are excited about what that band are doing that they shouldn't enjoy it. Far too much of this pish going on on here.

[magisme]

We should definitely spend more time celebrating current GNR's achievements.

Any thoughts on what those are?

[BBA]

All of the shows I've been to since 2002 have had the same GN'R feel to me as the ones I attended in 93 and before.

I honestly don't believe you. Not for a second. I do believe that you are obviously fanatical when it comes to Axl Rose -- and that's your biz. But I don't believe for a second that the 2002 lineup had the same feel to you as the 1993 lineup. It was a completely different band for christ's sake. Even Axl didn't sound like Axl.

To believe what you just stated, I'd either have to come to the conclusion that you are completely delusional or a complete Axl fanatic. I don't question at all that you are the latter of the two.

Just out of curiosity, why not just be honest and say that you are fanatical when it comes to Axl Rose and that you'd be willing to accept anything he does as being GNR? Why make up something like "it felt the same" when there was next to no similarity at all? I'm honestly curious as to what you hope to gain?

I love that fact that some people simply cannot see where others are coming from.

I'm not being dishonest or delusional and I'm certain not a "complete Axl fanatic", I just happened to point out the fact that for me the shows in 2002 had the same feel as those in 1993 and before that I attended. See my avatar? That's my favorite guitarist to ever be in GN'R. When is the first time I saw him on stage in person with GN'R? 2002. So imagine seeing a band you love with a new guitar player for the first time and you just dig what he's doing. That's how the gig was brought to the same level as seeing line ups prior to that for me.

Also, this whole "You must have something to gain from an opinion" is such a tired angle.

Even by you getting angry and defensive doesn't lead me to believe you any more. I simply asked how in God's green earth the 2002 lineup could have felt the same to you as the 1993 lineup when there was absolutely no similarity AT ALL other than Axl's 2002 lineup covering that same band's songs. There were no similarities. None. Even Axl wasn't similar. He looked and sounded drastically different.

And your explanation about Robin being your favorite guitar player doesn't lead to your claim making any more sense. Because Robin is your favorite guitar player, that somehow translates into you believing that the 2002 lineup had the same feel as the 1993 band? *scratching head* Sorry. I'm not following.

Again, I just don't understand why you won't say that you're willing to accept anything as being GNR as long as Axl is involved? I mean, that is the case, right?

[highvoltage]

'87-'91 is what feels the most like GN'R to me.

EDIT: I probably judge it that way because Appetite and Lies have always been the albums I listen to the most.

[Black Sabbath]

Axl Rose is Gn'R.

But I was born after Appetite so I have opinion on the subject matter, clearly.

[wfuckinga]

GNR is Axl's vision, nothing more and nothing less... if you think otherwise you are a fool.

Why are you doing the wank emoticon? That's true, GN'R has always been and will always be Axl's band.

[WhazUp]

GN'R has always been and will always be Axl's band.

Since the mid 90's sure, but I do completely refute the concept that it was always Axl's band. He was a very important part of past and present GNR, hell in both he is absolutely crucial - but the post-96 era GNR is more Axl's band than the classic lineups which were always without fail a musical collective and born from collaboration in both songwriting and unique musicianship of each member where there was not one underlying presence that reigned over all.

Edited October 7, 2013 by WhazUp

[magisme]

Axl Rose is Gn'R.

But I was born after Appetite so I have opinion on the subject matter, clearly.

You have an opinion. It's just absurd.

Did Axl write all the songs? Did he play all the instruments? Was he the soul iconic member? You see, it's bullshit like this, failing to take into account the obvious, that makes some of us believe that there is a certain group of posters so obsessed with Axl that they are completely incapable of reasonable discussion.

[Kapitch_77]

I went to see "GNR" in 2006, and while I was glad to see Axl, something was not quite right. I felt it the most during the November Rain solo. The show was not bad and as you know, in 2006, Axl's voice was pretty good, but it's just not the same. The old band was simply something extraordinary.

ACDC, Black Sabbath, for exemple, they continued with other members but at least they kept their sound. This new band don't even sound like what GNR used to sound like. Just listen to CD... wtf...

To me Guns N Roses need the Slash sound and Duff's bass (live at least), as for an album Izzy has got to be there. No Izzy, no Slash, No Duff... no gnr, even if Axl is there.

[Bobbo]

Axl Rose is Gn'R.

But I was born after Appetite so I have opinion on the subject matter, clearly.

So was I, but to me, what I posted already in this thread is just looking at it realistically.

I think a lot people think I'm a 30-40 something year old spiteful fan, but really, I'm only 23, and fully accept and realize GNR died before I even sprouted pubic hair.

What we have now is a little engine that couldn't turned full on nostalgic parody.

[Powerage5]

I went to see "GNR" in 2006, and while I was glad to see Axl, something was not quite right. I felt it the most during the November Rain solo. The show was not bad and as you know, in 2006, Axl's voice was pretty good, but it's just not the same. The old band was simply something extraordinary.

ACDC, Black Sabbath, for exemple, they continued with other members but at least they kept their sound. This new band don't even sound like what GNR used to sound like. Just listen to CD... wtf...

To me Guns N Roses need the Slash sound and Duff's bass (live at least), as for an album Izzy has got to be there. No Izzy, no Slash, No Duff... no gnr, even if Axl is there.

I've got two problems with that bolded paragraph. First off - Sabbath in the 80's and 90's sounded nothing like in the 70's, other than the inimitable riffs from Tony. 70's Sabbath was bluesy, and very much proto-doom metal. Starting with Heaven And Hell and continuing through most of the Tony Martin era, with the notable exception of Seventh Star which is it's own anomaly, Sabbath was very much a NWOBHM band. The difference to me is night and day; take the singers out of the equation, and the difference between pre and post-1979 Sabbath is still extremely clear.

Second - I think you're trying too hard to pigeon-hole GN'R into a single sound. And really, the Illusions have a very different sound than Appetite, and then you've got Lies and TSI on top of that, which are their own beasts as well. Sure there were some songs on the Illusions that were reminiscent of AFD, but in general the band's sound evolved a lot in 4 years. To me, CD is just an extension of that evolution - I definitely hear the Illusions vibe in some of the songs, and others are a whole new direction for GN'R. Just think - in 1987 if you'd ask someone what you thought the band would sound like in 5 years that they'd tell you they expected stuff like Estranged or Yesterdays or Breakdown or Coma?

[pugachev]

Axl and Izzy = passable GNR

Axl, Slash and Duff = passable GNR

Slash, Izzy and Duff = passable GNR

Slash, Duff, Steven/Matt and Gilby = lol

no slaxl no gnr

[Kapitch_77]

I went to see "GNR" in 2006, and while I was glad to see Axl, something was not quite right. I felt it the most during the November Rain solo. The show was not bad and as you know, in 2006, Axl's voice was pretty good, but it's just not the same. The old band was simply something extraordinary.

ACDC, Black Sabbath, for exemple, they continued with other members but at least they kept their sound. This new band don't even sound like what GNR used to sound like. Just listen to CD... wtf...

To me Guns N Roses need the Slash sound and Duff's bass (live at least), as for an album Izzy has got to be there. No Izzy, no Slash, No Duff... no gnr, even if Axl is there.

I've got two problems with that bolded paragraph. First off - Sabbath in the 80's and 90's sounded nothing like in the 70's, other than the inimitable riffs from Tony. 70's Sabbath was bluesy, and very much proto-doom metal. Starting with Heaven And Hell and continuing through most of the Tony Martin era, with the notable exception of Seventh Star which is it's own anomaly, Sabbath was very much a NWOBHM band. The difference to me is night and day; take the singers out of the equation, and the difference between pre and post-1979 Sabbath is still extremely clear.

Second - I think you're trying too hard to pigeon-hole GN'R into a single sound. And really, the Illusions have a very different sound than Appetite, and then you've got Lies and TSI on top of that, which are their own beasts as well. Sure there were some songs on the Illusions that were reminiscent of AFD, but in general the band's sound evolved a lot in 4 years. To me, CD is just an extension of that evolution - I definitely hear the Illusions vibe in some of the songs, and others are a whole new direction for GN'R. Just think - in 1987 if you'd ask someone what you thought the band would sound like in 5 years that they'd tell you they expected stuff like Estranged or Yesterdays or Breakdown or Coma?

You may be right, it's not exactly the same but it still feels like Black Sabbath. Like ...And Justice for All has not the exact same sound as Master of Puppets but it still sounds like Metallica... Chinese Democracy, to me, doesn't sound nor feel like GNR.

[The Linguini Occurrence]

Axl's classic voice is GNR. I like Slash, but his guitar solos can be duplicated to the point where if you didn't see who was playing you wouldn't know it wasn't Slash.

Axl's voice simply can't be duplicated, it's arguably the most unique voice in rock history.

[RussTCB]

All of the shows I've been to since 2002 have had the same GN'R feel to me as the ones I attended in 93 and before.

I honestly don't believe you. Not for a second. I do believe that you are obviously fanatical when it comes to Axl Rose -- and that's your biz. But I don't believe for a second that the 2002 lineup had the same feel to you as the 1993 lineup. It was a completely different band for christ's sake. Even Axl didn't sound like Axl.

To believe what you just stated, I'd either have to come to the conclusion that you are completely delusional or a complete Axl fanatic. I don't question at all that you are the latter of the two.

Just out of curiosity, why not just be honest and say that you are fanatical when it comes to Axl Rose and that you'd be willing to accept anything he does as being GNR? Why make up something like "it felt the same" when there was next to no similarity at all? I'm honestly curious as to what you hope to gain?

I love that fact that some people simply cannot see where others are coming from.

I'm not being dishonest or delusional and I'm certain not a "complete Axl fanatic", I just happened to point out the fact that for me the shows in 2002 had the same feel as those in 1993 and before that I attended. See my avatar? That's my favorite guitarist to ever be in GN'R. When is the first time I saw him on stage in person with GN'R? 2002. So imagine seeing a band you love with a new guitar player for the first time and you just dig what he's doing. That's how the gig was brought to the same level as seeing line ups prior to that for me.

Also, this whole "You must have something to gain from an opinion" is such a tired angle.

Even by you getting angry and defensive doesn't lead me to believe you any more. I simply asked how in God's green earth the 2002 lineup could have felt the same to you as the 1993 lineup when there was absolutely no similarity AT ALL other than Axl's 2002 lineup covering that same band's songs. There were no similarities. None. Even Axl wasn't similar. He looked and sounded drastically different.

And your explanation about Robin being your favorite guitar player doesn't lead to your claim making any more sense. Because Robin is your favorite guitar player, that somehow translates into you believing that the 2002 lineup had the same feel as the 1993 band? *scratching head* Sorry. I'm not following.

Again, I just don't understand why you won't say that you're willing to accept anything as being GNR as long as Axl is involved? I mean, that is the case, right?

Who's getting "all angry and defensive"? You said a lot of things that weren't true and I argued my point. Nothing angry or defensive about it. As for Robin being my favorite guitarist, the explanation for that was in the post so please re-read. Also, in my original post I said that Axl is 70% of the GN'R sound for me so it would appear I'm not dodging anything.

[Crash Diet]

GNR is Axl's vision, nothing more and nothing less... if you think otherwise you are a fool.

Why are you doing the wank emoticon? That's true, GN'R has always been and will always be Axl's band.

cuz it's not true, dork....

have you heard about Izzy or Slash?

Without them GNR just be a mediocre hair band and never got as big as it was in the old days....

GN'R has always been and will always be Axl's band.

Since the mid 90's sure, but I do completely refute the concept that it was always Axl's band. He was a very important part of past and present GNR, hell in both he is absolutely crucial - but the post-96 era GNR is more Axl's band than the classic lineups which were always without fail a musical collective and born from collaboration in both songwriting and unique musicianship of each member where there was not one underlying presence that reigned over all.

exactly

Axl Rose is Gn'R.

But I was born after Appetite so I have opinion on the subject matter, clearly.

So was I, but to me, what I posted already in this thread is just looking at it realistically.

I think a lot people think I'm a 30-40 something year old spiteful fan, but really, I'm only 23, and fully accept and realize GNR died before I even sprouted pubic hair.

What we have now is a little engine that couldn't turned full on nostalgic parody.

same here

[Definite_Maybe]

This is GNR as much as Paul McCartney's backing band are The Beatles.

If you accept these hacks as GNR, then you have to accept The Beatles are still touring...

[GivenToFly]

GN'R has always been and will always be Axl's band.

Since the mid 90's sure, but I do completely refute the concept that it was always Axl's band. He was a very important part of past and present GNR, hell in both he is absolutely crucial - but the post-96 era GNR is more Axl's band than the classic lineups which were always without fail a musical collective and born from collaboration in both songwriting and unique musicianship of each member where there was not one underlying presence that reigned over all.

Everything that's happened with GNR has been, if not Axl's decision, then at least condoned by Axl because he could always veto anything he wanted. (In regards to decisions taken within the band, of course. He couldn't veto the UYI World Tour which was a management decision) In that way it pretty much makes it Axl's band. I seriously doubt Izzy or Duff or even Slash had anything close to that kind of power in GNR.

Axl Rose is Gn'R.

But I was born after Appetite so I have opinion on the subject matter, clearly.

You have an opinion. It's just absurd.

Did Axl write all the songs? Did he play all the instruments? Was he the soul iconic member? You see, it's bullshit like this, failing to take into account the obvious, that makes some of us believe that there is a certain group of posters so obsessed with Axl that they are completely incapable of reasonable discussion.

That's not even the case with solo artists.

To me I think it's down to time. When I first discovered GNR and the whole Chinese Democracy story I didn't accept the new lineups as GNR either. But then enough time passed that I stopped caring. Fine, it's GNR, whatever. I did like the music though and I think that helped.