Post-2000 GN'R Deserve A Better Legacy Than This

[Graeme]

With the GN'R-discussion section of the forum having scented blood on the reunion issue and with that now being the dominant topic of discussion regardless of whether it's a realistic prospect or not, it seems that the dominant attitude at the moment to the current (most recent, whatever) line-up of the band is that it should be forgotten about in the wake of a tour by the Appetite/Illusions line-ups or some sort of amalgamation thereof.

Personally, I really don't want to see CD-era Guns N' Roses (fuck calling them "NuGNR" or any of that other nonsense) regarded as one big continuous failure/mistake which has somehow been 'put right' by a reunion. While I'd have been on the reunion bandwagon quite happily when I joined the forum, I had such a fantastic time following the band from 2006-2010 (and even enjoyed parts of 2012) that seeing it come to such an inglorious end is really disappointing to me.

That doesn't mean I delusionally think everything is fine, sufficient new music has been released, TB have been a superb management team, #ashbaswag isn't utterly cringeworthy, Axl's voice post-2011 sounded good, the setlists were varied and ambitious etc. In fact, even if a reunion doesn't happen then all of the things I listed (and more) mean that the whole thing will end in a train-wreck anyway and rock history will not be kind...

But I loved this band, they were a collection of supremely talented misfits flying in the face of popular opinion, their very existence was a big 'fuck you' to the rock n' roll establishment; to all those bands who had their little fallouts and then reunited when things got lucrative enough, to the label execs laying hundreds of millions on the table to try and force a reunion, to every manager who took the reins with the sole glory-hunting intention of being the one who finally got Guns N' Roses to reunite and all the magazines who wrote them off before they'd even heard them play. The controversies that surrounded them, the enigmatic status of the album, some of the weird events that happened live totally lived up to GN'R's legacy of dynamic dysfunctionality and it made them absolutely fascinating to follow.

Not least was the fact that when I got to see them play, they put on the best rock n' roll shows I've ever seen. I'm sure there must be others here, other perfectly reasonable people who feel the same way, who went along to a GN'R show in the 2000s and had the time of their lives.

Reunionism for me became synonymous with the people who hung around here when the later line-ups were active, complaining about everything and belittling those who enjoyed the shows and the record as being in some way musically retarded. These are now the same people who would quite happily discard the last 20 years as a joke with no validity whatsoever, in favour of a reunion.

No idea if there's anyone left to agree with me, but I felt that Guns N' Roses as I knew them deserved better than being replaced and erased or just falling into obscurity.

[estrangedtwat]

It would be easier to agree if they (or Axl, really) had managed to do anything other than touring. And the biggest complaint about the touring is that they played the same setlist every night with only minor variations over the years.

I was super excited about the band from 1999-2002, and again in 2006 when Axl resurfaced.

But the constant delays, lack of material, revolving door of personnel, and overall repetition of the live shows killed interest and made it impossible for me to see them as a "rea" band and anything other than a group of live session players.

[Graeme]

I don't disagree, I just think they had the potential to be so much more. Axl's failure to capitalise on this is the most frustrating/gutting thing about this situation for me, and if he throws away whatever's left by acceding to a reunion then I'll lose more or less all respect for him (though I can't say I'm thrilled with where things stand at the moment).

[DieselDaisy]

I do not think anyone can deny their was a lot of talent and potential there but the potential (for me) went largely unrealised. One album in circa fifteen years is a pretty shoddy return - even for those who love Chinese Democracy. Some of the shows however were good: for me 2006-07 was a high point as it saw Axl in fine voice and was pre-Ashba. The 2002 tour was a disaster. 2010 was good. Everything from 2011 henceforth, the ''Vegas years'', has been simply woeful and a thorough embarrassment.

[shotsfired cro]

everything post 1994 should be erased and forgotten.

someone shall press one huge 'delet' button on that Axl solo failure and delete that embarrasment from GNR records.

plain and simple.

[Intercourse]

but I felt that Guns N' Roses as I knew them deserved better than being replaced and erased or just falling into obscurity.

You could say exactly the same thing about the original line up.

That's why people are excited that old wrongs may be put right.

Sure, the newer versions of the band got a poor end but whose fault is that?

You seem to be blaming the fans when in fact you should blame the band leader and on a smaller level the band themselves. Bumble is the only member that bitched about the various elephants in the band's room, namely the absence of new music, the lack of a core writing ethic, the late starts, the last minute nature of all communications to band members.

You say that " their very existence was a big 'fuck you' to the rock n' roll establishment"

I don't know why you think a bunch of forty-something session musicians being treated a little shoddily by their singer and his management team is such a symbol of rock n roll rebellion, what I saw was a band with no real sense of itself that existed to fund the lifestyle of a singer who couldn't get on with his old band mates.

Nothing more.

Sure he refused huge money offers, but his behaviour of the last 7 years would indicate that he did that because he was too proud to turn around rather than him being on some artistic mission to create music for the fans he loved in the way he felt they deserved.

[username]

With the GN'R-discussion section of the forum having scented blood on the reunion issue and with that now being the dominant topic of discussion regardless of whether it's a realistic prospect or not, it seems that the dominant attitude at the moment to the current (most recent, whatever) line-up of the band is that it should be forgotten about in the wake of a tour by the Appetite/Illusions line-ups or some sort of amalgamation thereof.

Personally, I really don't want to see CD-era Guns N' Roses (fuck calling them "NuGNR" or any of that other nonsense) regarded as one big continuous failure/mistake which has somehow been 'put right' by a reunion. While I'd have been on the reunion bandwagon quite happily when I joined the forum, I had such a fantastic time following the band from 2006-2010 (and even enjoyed parts of 2012) that seeing it come to such an inglorious end is really disappointing to me.

That doesn't mean I delusionally think everything is fine, sufficient new music has been released, TB have been a superb management team, #ashbaswag isn't utterly cringeworthy, Axl's voice post-2011 sounded good, the setlists were varied and ambitious etc. In fact, even if a reunion doesn't happen then all of the things I listed (and more) mean that the whole thing will end in a train-wreck anyway and rock history will not be kind...

But I loved this band, they were a collection of supremely talented misfits flying in the face of popular opinion, their very existence was a big 'fuck you' to the rock n' roll establishment; to all those bands who had their little fallouts and then reunited when things got lucrative enough, to the label execs laying hundreds of millions on the table to try and force a reunion, to every manager who took the reins with the sole glory-hunting intention of being the one who finally got Guns N' Roses to reunite and all the magazines who wrote them off before they'd even heard them play. The controversies that surrounded them, the enigmatic status of the album, some of the weird events that happened live totally lived up to GN'R's legacy of dynamic dysfunctionality and it made them absolutely fascinating to follow.

Not least was the fact that when I got to see them play, they put on the best rock n' roll shows I've ever seen. I'm sure there must be others here, other perfectly reasonable people who feel the same way, who went along to a GN'R show in the 2000s and had the time of their lives.

Reunionism for me became synonymous with the people who hung around here when the later line-ups were active, complaining about everything and belittling those who enjoyed the shows and the record as being in some way musically retarded. These are now the same people who would quite happily discard the last 20 years as a joke with no validity whatsoever, in favour of a reunion.

No idea if there's anyone left to agree with me, but I felt that Guns N' Roses as I knew them deserved better than being replaced and erased or just falling into obscurity.

Do they though? I mean, who is to blame for the way they're looked at now?

I'd be tempted to agree with you had the 1998-2004 thing worked out. But it didn't. No album. Buckethead left. I hated his image, but there's no denying his creative influence. So that failed.

I'd even consider it up to 2007. Yes, Buckethead left. But the band was way more solid live. But still no album. And Finck left.

Then it went from bad to worse. Yes, CD came out. But it was 8 years too late. And it pretty much failed. Some of you might like it, but it never did what it was meant to do in 2000-2002. Establish the band as a real musical force. It was too late for that.

And everything post 2008 was, for lack of a better word, absolutely pathetic.

So no. I'm sorry but I really don't think they deserve a better legacy. Not based on result anyway. Revolving-door band, lack of output, image (all over the place, and even worse, Ashba), sound (particularly Axl's voice and Ashba). Shows that were canceled (particularly in in 2001 and 2002). And the countless high-exposure gigs that turned shit. From the VMA's in 2002 to Rio in 2011. Then there's (like you said) the most incompetent bunch of leeches that call themselves a managemen team. Guns n' Roses and Chinese Democracy have actually been used as punchlines to jokes in sitcoms. What does that tell you? It's one big line of consecutive failures.

I'd love to say it wasn't and that they deserved better. But based on result? They really don't.

Post-1998 GnR is the story of what could have been but never was.

Edited October 5, 2015 by username

[Bono]

GnR post 2000 deserve the legacy they have. A shit legacy for what became a shit show of an organization. None of this CD era or YES NuGnR is Guns N Roses. Why anyone would want to hold onto something that has basically been worthless is beyond me. The CD era of Guns N Roses is shit. It's accomplished nothing other than tarnish the Guns N Roses name and truthfully anyone wanting to stick with CD era GnR in favour of a reunion because they enjoyed following the band during this time are more in it for nostalgia and sentimental sake than those who want a reunion and REAL GUNS N FUCKIN' ROSES. The reason people want a reunion is because it's better. Plain and simple. End of story!

[bran]

axl had every chance in the world and he fucked it up.

[DieselDaisy]

Reunion tours can be a bit cheesy though, i.e. old farts playing the hits for cash, all their respective lawyers ironing out a contract, etc. Robert Plant sums them up best,

"A (Zeppelin reunion) tour would have been an absolute menagerie of vested interests and the very essence of everything that's shitty about big-time stadium rock. We were surrounded by a circus of people that would have had our souls on the fire. I'm not part of a jukebox!"

- http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/robert-plant-slams-idea-of-zeppelin-tour-im-not-part-of-a-jukebox-20140508

[GNR 1991]

There wasn't a more exciting time to follow the band than 2006, imo. The Hammerstein shows, the leaks, Axl on Trunk, Axl in Rolling Stone, the new guitarist excitement, there was a fantastic buildup. CD's success or lack thereof was all dependent on the timing of it's release. There was absolutely no reason why it shouldn't have come out in 2006. The band was on fire, the tour's got good press, Axl sounded great (the improvement from 2002 was significant). Not only was releasing it two years later a huge reason why even less people cared (we heard half of the album years earlier), but there wasn't even a band or Axl around to promote it. Horrible end game execution by whoever.

As of now, there literally is no band. I wish Axl and co did something more productive from 2009-2014 than just touring (even though the band was solid, the sets were varied from previous tours, and the reviews were positive). I wish things were different, it was all run so poorly I'm afraid. I'd like to believe that there is a motivated Axl somewhere on the verge of releasing new music and touring behind it, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Lies They Tell]

CD was a great record and a reunion doesn't change that. What Axl's done all these years won't be considered a failure, because songs like The General, Atlas Shrugged and so on will be released and people will probably enjoy those songs. Only Slash might replace some of the guitar solos etc... CD is what it is. Some like it and some don't. That won't change in the future. Of course if there's a reunion then GNR will probably become the biggest rock band on the planet again. And Chinese Democracy will get more fans. That's my prediction.

[DR DOOM]

Look, I supported and wanted Axl's GNR to kick ass and rule the world but after that 06/07 tour, everything has been a disgrace- and to be fair the live stuff from 2000-02 (while exciting) couldn't be truthfully described as awesome or even a success either- it was a clusterfuck disaster...yes, way better than the 09-14 atrocities but still a very far cry from even the most bloated moments of the real Guns N Roses.

Get over it man, Timmy Stuson, Ron BF Thal, #demented...all those guys could do a 50 year stint as GNR and then you could roll them up into a ball and that ball wouldn't amount to shit next to Slash, Izzy, Duff and Adler, fuck it, let's chuck Sorum and Gilby in there too.

You'd still be judging it off of the one album anyway (Chinese Democracy).

I think you're a top bloke G, but wake up and smell the coffee dude.

[DieselDaisy]

2002 was the new band's Marengo, a stuttering triumph to a golden career. 2006-07 their Austerlitz. 2010, Wagram - more flawed and less comprehensive than prior victories but still a victory all the same. 2011-14 their Retreat from Moscow, the gradual disintegration of their military machine. 2015 has been their Waterloo, the end, finite. Axl is now on St Helena, overweight, a shadow of his former self.

Edited October 5, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[Bono]

Reunion tours can be a bit cheesy though, i.e. old farts playing the hits for cash, all their respective lawyers ironing out a contract, etc. Robert Plant sums them up best,

"A (Zeppelin reunion) tour would have been an absolute menagerie of vested interests and the very essence of everything that's shitty about big-time stadium rock. We were surrounded by a circus of people that would have had our souls on the fire. I'm not part of a jukebox!"

- http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/robert-plant-slams-idea-of-zeppelin-tour-im-not-part-of-a-jukebox-20140508

How in the fuck would a Guns N Roses reunion tour be any more cheesy than what tours as GnR now? I mean Slash and Duff still kick tons of ass on stage. Izzy can still playa nd looks cool as always, Matt could do the job on drums. The only thing that has potential to be cheesy with a reunion tour is Axl.

[DR DOOM]

Reunion tours can be a bit cheesy though, i.e. old farts playing the hits for cash, all their respective lawyers ironing out a contract, etc. Robert Plant sums them up best,

"A (Zeppelin reunion) tour would have been an absolute menagerie of vested interests and the very essence of everything that's shitty about big-time stadium rock. We were surrounded by a circus of people that would have had our souls on the fire. I'm not part of a jukebox!"

- http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/robert-plant-slams-idea-of-zeppelin-tour-im-not-part-of-a-jukebox-20140508

How in the fuck would a Guns N Roses reunion tour be any more cheesy than what tours as GnR now? I mean Slash and Duff still kick tons of ass on stage. Izzy can still playa nd looks cool as always, Matt could do the job on drums. The only thing that has potential to be cheesy with a reunion tour is Axl.

Don't forget Dizzy Reed!

[Bono]

There wasn't a more exciting time to follow the band than 2006, imo.

There was never a more exciting time to follow Guns N Roses than 2006 eh? Never? Ever?

[DR DOOM]

New Coke deserves a better legacy than it has.

Sure, it tasted like shit and nobody liked it, but cmon guise!

[Bono]

New Coke deserves a better legacy than it has.

Sure, it tasted like shit and nobody liked it, but cmon guise!

Maybe if you extrapolate it somehow.

[DieselDaisy]

Reunion tours can be a bit cheesy though, i.e. old farts playing the hits for cash, all their respective lawyers ironing out a contract, etc. Robert Plant sums them up best,

"A (Zeppelin reunion) tour would have been an absolute menagerie of vested interests and the very essence of everything that's shitty about big-time stadium rock. We were surrounded by a circus of people that would have had our souls on the fire. I'm not part of a jukebox!"

- http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/robert-plant-slams-idea-of-zeppelin-tour-im-not-part-of-a-jukebox-20140508

How in the fuck would a Guns N Roses reunion tour be any more cheesy than what tours as GnR now? I mean Slash and Duff still kick tons of ass on stage. Izzy can still playa nd looks cool as always, Matt could do the job on drums. The only thing that has potential to be cheesy with a reunion tour is Axl.

It wouldn't. it would at least have the decency to have the proper musicians. But you see it time and time again, a lucrative money spinner, ''we are fat, 40 and back'' followed by the obligatory live album. You sit, having paid a fortune, watching these people trying to recreate their youth. There is something painful about the experience. You can probably kiss goodbye to new material as well for the next three years.

We have seen it time and time again, Fleetward Mac, Kiss, Eagles, Pistols, etc. The same beer guts and receding hair lines. The same inflated ticket prices and greatest hits setlists.

[Stress Fracture]

You create a legacy with music, not by spending your entire time living off the songs of the people you replaced.

Not that they're likely to care but Robin Finck and Buckethead have left some GNR legacy in their wake. Chinese Democracy will always be written about, albeit not always positively. DJ Ashba has absolutely nothing to show for his time with Axl. Bumblefoot and Fortus were shoehorned on to Chinese Democracy but created nothing.

Imagine if Axl had let go of the GNR name and formed a new band with that last line up under a new name in 2008. There'd be nothing to show for those seven years. No tours because they wrote nothing to play.

[Mr. Dude]

With the GN'R-discussion section of the forum having scented blood on the reunion issue and with that now being the dominant topic of discussion regardless of whether it's a realistic prospect or not, it seems that the dominant attitude at the moment to the current (most recent, whatever) line-up of the band is that it should be forgotten about in the wake of a tour by the Appetite/Illusions line-ups or some sort of amalgamation thereof.

Personally, I really don't want to see CD-era Guns N' Roses (fuck calling them "NuGNR" or any of that other nonsense) regarded as one big continuous failure/mistake which has somehow been 'put right' by a reunion. While I'd have been on the reunion bandwagon quite happily when I joined the forum, I had such a fantastic time following the band from 2006-2010 (and even enjoyed parts of 2012) that seeing it come to such an inglorious end is really disappointing to me.

That doesn't mean I delusionally think everything is fine, sufficient new music has been released, TB have been a superb management team, #ashbaswag isn't utterly cringeworthy, Axl's voice post-2011 sounded good, the setlists were varied and ambitious etc. In fact, even if a reunion doesn't happen then all of the things I listed (and more) mean that the whole thing will end in a train-wreck anyway and rock history will not be kind...

But I loved this band, they were a collection of supremely talented misfits flying in the face of popular opinion, their very existence was a big 'fuck you' to the rock n' roll establishment; to all those bands who had their little fallouts and then reunited when things got lucrative enough, to the label execs laying hundreds of millions on the table to try and force a reunion, to every manager who took the reins with the sole glory-hunting intention of being the one who finally got Guns N' Roses to reunite and all the magazines who wrote them off before they'd even heard them play. The controversies that surrounded them, the enigmatic status of the album, some of the weird events that happened live totally lived up to GN'R's legacy of dynamic dysfunctionality and it made them absolutely fascinating to follow.

Not least was the fact that when I got to see them play, they put on the best rock n' roll shows I've ever seen. I'm sure there must be others here, other perfectly reasonable people who feel the same way, who went along to a GN'R show in the 2000s and had the time of their lives.

Reunionism for me became synonymous with the people who hung around here when the later line-ups were active, complaining about everything and belittling those who enjoyed the shows and the record as being in some way musically retarded. These are now the same people who would quite happily discard the last 20 years as a joke with no validity whatsoever, in favour of a reunion.

No idea if there's anyone left to agree with me, but I felt that Guns N' Roses as I knew them deserved better than being replaced and erased or just falling into obscurity.

Pretty much exactly how I feel. It really seemed to me a completely rock n roll thing to do- the way Axl did it. For me it was just this somehow noble and defiant thing to do to pursue his vision no matter the cost and I always liked to envision Axl sticking to his guns til the very end.

[nn18]

There wasn't a more exciting time to follow the band than 2006, imo.

There was never a more exciting time to follow Guns N Roses than 2006 eh? Never? Ever?

Well, for someone who was born after GnR days, there probably wasn't

[Towelie]

Past giving a shit tbh.

[DR DOOM]

Ballad Of Death and the Pink Panther Theme deserve their dues.

Maybe on Greatest Hits II?