BlackHoleGravity Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Well, Foreigner isn't dead, and they tour with zero original members for most shows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gun Shy Assassin Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 31 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: I don't refer to it as a reunion because I am a schtickler for precision. This simply isn't a band reunion and it makes little sense to me to refer to it as a reunion between individuals. If people prefer to call it anything else, then I feel that is more motivated by agendas and biases than actually wanting to be precise. Since you're a schtickler for precision, I thought I'd re-post the definition of the word "reunion". I figured someone who is a schtickler for accuracy - and who doesn't have a personal bias and agenda - would appreciate someone spelling out the textbook definition. Can't get much more "precise" than this! re·un·ion noun noun: reunion; plural noun: reunions; noun: re-union; plural noun: re-unions an instance of two or more people coming together again after a period of separation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussTCB Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 17 minutes ago, Gun Shy Assassin said: You say that GNR's marketing has consisted of Star War trailers and billboard signs. I have seen both, and neither appear to commit to any certain members being there or not being there. In fact, one could argue that the "classic logo" could be misleading, if this isn't a "reunion" as some of you claim. If there was some specific marketing (by the band) that made it crystal clear who would be taking part, I must have missed it. You mentioned commercials .. I haven't seen any. Did these commercials specify that instead of Izzy & Steve, we'd be getting the other 2 instead? The radio and TV ads that I mentioned besides the billboards and trailers specifically call out Axl, Slash and Duff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Gun Shy Assassin said: Since you're a schtickler for precision, I thought I'd re-post the definition of the word "reunion". I figured someone who is a schtickler for accuracy - and who doesn't have a personal bias and agenda - would appreciate someone spelling out the textbook definition. Can't get much more "precise" than this! re·un·ion noun noun: reunion; plural noun: reunions; noun: re-union; plural noun: re-unions an instance of two or more people coming together again after a period of separation. How many times do you want me to comment on this? I have already said that when we speak of a music reunion, we tend to mean a reunion of a full lineup. Btw, if you had posted the WHOLE definition (hah), and not only the part that you mistakingly think supports whatever argument you have -- and I am still at a loss as to what your point is; in fact, I am coming close to think you have no idea what your point is, either -- you would have seen the bolded and underscored part which is relevant to band reunions:: an instance of two or more people coming together again after a period of separation. "she had a tearful reunion with her parents" a social gathering attended by members of a group of people who have not seen each other for some time. "a school reunion" the action of being brought together again as a unified whole. "the reunion of East and West Germany" Edited April 25, 2016 by SoulMonster Additions 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsguy Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, RussTCB said: The radio and TV ads that I mentioned besides the billboards and trailers specifically call out Axl, Slash and Duff. But but but people say it says reunion? Surely you are missing the reunion of all 5 AFD guys and if not maybe Matt not sure who but just not these guys advertisements that they are seeing? Because people are saying it is being advertised as AFD lineup! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gun Shy Assassin Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: How many times do you want me to comment on this? I have already said that when we speak of a music reunion, we tend to mean a reunion of a full lineup. Btw, if you had posted the WHOLE definition (hah) you would have seen the bolded and underscored part which is relevant to band reunions:: an instance of two or more people coming together again after a period of separation. "she had a tearful reunion with her parents" a social gathering attended by members of a group of people who have not seen each other for some time. "a school reunion" the action of being brought together again as a unified whole. "the reunion of East and West Germany" The part that you bolded is irrelevant because it is still applicable even if Slash (or Duff) was the only person brought back. The term "reunion" can certainly apply to 2 individuals only. Somehow I think you probably know this, but for whatever reason, it doesn't fit the narrative that you seek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsguy Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: How many times do you want me to comment on this? I have already said that when we speak of a music reunion, we tend to mean a reunion of a full lineup. Btw, if you had posted the WHOLE definition (hah), and not only the part that you mistakingly think supports whatever argument you have -- and I am still at a loss as to what your point is; in fact, I am coming close to think you have no idea what your point is, either -- you would have seen the bolded and underscored part which is relevant to band reunions:: an instance of two or more people coming together again after a period of separation. "she had a tearful reunion with her parents" a social gathering attended by members of a group of people who have not seen each other for some time. "a school reunion" the action of being brought together again as a unified whole. "the reunion of East and West Germany" This would be all fine and dandy *IF* GN'R were advertising a reunion which I have not found anywhere. If anyone can show me a GN'R official ad touting a reunion with these guys that are currently in the band then I will eat my words... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNRfan2008 Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 10 minutes ago, BlackHoleGravity said: Well, Foreigner isn't dead, and they tour with zero original members for most shows... Foreigner didn't connect with everyone quite like GN'R did. The Appetite 5 became like cartoon characters (thanks to the AFD cross and memorabilia). Everyone knew who they were. It was sorta like The Beatles or something. Each member had their own fanbase and each one did enough media appearances that everyone knew who they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janrichmond Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 This thread is turning into a school English grammar lesson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Just now, Gun Shy Assassin said: The part that you bolded is irrelevant because it is still applicable even if Slash (or Duff) was the only person brought back. The term "reunion" can certainly apply to 2 individuals only. Somehow I think you probably know this, but for whatever reason, it doesn't fit the narrative that you seek. No, it doesn't fit with the normal understanding of what is meant with a reunion in music That is why a lot of media now, as they start to realize that Melissa wan't actually in GN'R back in the 80s or early 90s (she was possibly not even born then), start referring to it as a semi-reunion and similar things that suggest that what we have isn't a real reunion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom-Ass Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: How many times do you want me to comment on this? I have already said that when we speak of a music reunion, we tend to mean a reunion of a full lineup. Or at least more than 40% originals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Gun Shy Assasion, And I still fail to grasp what your point is. Is it that you think GN'R should go out and address the rumours that it is a reunion? Is it that this IS a reunion in any other sense than a reunion between three musicians? Is it that the definition is wrong and this is a lineup reunion because it is enough that Slash and Duff and Axl is back again god dammit! Maybe if you tried expressing it, putting words on what your problem is, it would make things a little clearer to yourself and this discussion could be a bit more productive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gun Shy Assassin Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: No, it doesn't fit with the normal understanding of what is meant with a reunion in music That is why a lot of media now, as they start to realize that Melissa wan't actually in GN'R back in the 80s or early 90s (she was possibly not even born then), start referring to it as a semi-reunion and similar things that suggest that what we have isn't a real reunion. You clearly stated that you're only interested in being "precise". I gave you the textbook definition of the word "reunion" and you are arguing against it? That seems contradictory to what you previously stated. We can continue with the play on words all day, but the reality is, Axl agreed to a reunion, and further agreed to split the touring royalties with the other alumni. If he was successful without the other 2 guys that he hated for years (and even forecasted his own death before playing with one of them), would it seem logical that he would have done this? Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely happy that Slash and Duff are back, like I said, it's the first time I've been interested in the band since 1996, but why he chose to reunite (and the fact that he did reunite) should be pretty blatantly obvious. Edited April 25, 2016 by Gun Shy Assassin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHoleGravity Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Most people (non hardcore fans) consider this tour as a reunion, many probably assume it is the infamous AFD lineup...others just don't care and just want to hear the hits. This is the world we live in, and why bands like Foreigner still do well on the road... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Just now, Gun Shy Assassin said: You clearly stated that you're only interested in being "precise". I gave you the textbook definition of the word "reunion" and you are arguing against it? That seems contradictory to what you previously stated. We can continue with the play on words all day, but the reality is, Axl agreed to a reunion, and further agreed to split the touring royalties with the other alumni. If he was successful without the other 2 guys that he hated for years (and even forecasted his own death before playing with one of them), would it seem logical that he would have done this? Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely happy that Slash and Duff are back, like I said, it's the first time I've been interested in the band since 1996, but why he chose to reunite should be pretty blatantly obvious. Hahah, no, the tectbook definition includes the case where it refers to the bringing together of something to make it whole again, which is the part of the definition that is applicable to us, but which you repeatedly left out while picking cherries. He agreed to have Slash and Duff back in the band, yes. Exactly what the motives for this were, is unknown to me. Here are some alternatives: more money, grudge ended, needed new band members, easier to release new material, giving the fans what they want, and probably many more. I will not claim to know the reason, but I would be surprised if it doesn't include a combination of at least some of these possible explanations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gun Shy Assassin Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 1 minute ago, SoulMonster said: Hahah, no, the tectbook definition includes the case where it refers to the bringing together of something to make it whole again, which is the part of the definition that is applicable to us, but which you repeatedly left out while picking cherries. He agreed to have Slash and Duff back in the band, yes. Exactly what the motives for this were, is unknown to me. Here are some alternatives: more money, grudge ended, needed new band members, easier to release new material, giving the fans what they want, and probably many more. I will not claim to know the reason, but I would be surprised if it doesn't include a combination of at least some of these possible explanations. Right .. the band had open vacancies ... and in order to make that band "whole", he opted to reunite with Slash and Duff. That made the band "whole" again, at least as far as the textbook definition of the word "reunion" is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 1 minute ago, Gun Shy Assassin said: Right .. the band had open vacancies ... and in order to make that band "whole", he opted to reunite with Slash and Duff. That made the band "whole" again, at least as far as the textbook definition of the word "reunion" is concerned. Haha, you are killing me No, the relevant part of the definition implies that the same components are coming back together again as a unified whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gun Shy Assassin Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 34 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: Haha, you are killing me No, the relevant part of the definition implies that the same components are coming back together again as a unified whole. Where in the definition does it say the "same" componets? Maybe it's just me, but I thought you were being sincere when you said that you care about being precise? re·un·ion the action of being brought together again as a unified whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsinindy Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Gun Shy Assassin said: Right .. the band had open vacancies ... and in order to make that band "whole", he opted to reunite with Slash and Duff. That made the band "whole" again, at least as far as the textbook definition of the word "reunion" is concerned. I have no idea what you two are talking about...but if you really think DJ left before knowing Slash was coming back, then OK, but I doubt that is the case. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bumblefeet Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Pitman has been a member of Guns n' Roses for 18 years. Just putting that out there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom2112 Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, Bumblefeet said: Pitman has been a member of Guns n' Roses for 18 years. Just putting that out there. WAS a member 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom2112 Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 How are there 10 pages on this? Is anyone arguing that Richard Fortus was not in GnR for the past 16 years? I'm allowing the loop hole of "It wasn't really gnr, just a name" to be a Yes he was in GnR for the past 16 years. GnR if you're reading this, give us some news because the constant squabbling is doing my head in. Oh and make sure Axl says that thing about Richard from now on, even better yet get Duff or Slash to say it, and don't forget Frank who's coming up on 10 years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Rose Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Holy shit I had to go take a coffee break in the middle of this tutorial.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madison Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 I find it amusing to watch certain people desperately trying to claim this tour isn't being promoted as a reunion tour. We have huge billboards and virtually every TV ad screaming out to the great unwashed - "for the first time in 23 years … … bang!" Heck, even the name of the tour - "Not in this lifetime" - is a play on Axl's own response to a REUNION. Yet, certain people try to pretend this isn't the case. I guess it's tough to admit that our favorite band is milking the "reunion" angle in order to charge huge prices at stadium-sized venues. We all know that Axl's replacement band could never sell out stadiums or charge these kinds of prices. But a reunion of the classic lineup that created the music that made GNR the biggest band on the planet? Absolutely. Don't get me wrong - I like Richard and think he's a good musician. And I'd have no problem with him playing some CD songs on this tour - but only AFTER all of the original guys are onboard - you know, the ones who actually wrote and CREATED the music that brought GNR to the top of the music world. There's absolutely no question this tour is being marketed as a reunion. So, the real question people should be asking is - why? Is it just a cash grab and the "big three" didn't want to share the cash equally with the Izzy, Steven and Matt? I hope that's not the reason. And before the great "non-reunion" crusaders come barreling in with claims - "Oh, but that's the promoters and marketers - that's not Axl - he has nothing to do with the way the tour is being promoted' - Please …. Axl is a guy who micromanages everything in his band and life. So, if you think for a second he knows nothing about it or that he didn't sign off on it, then think again. Geesh. As for the name-calling and other juvenile comments that have been hurled at myself and others who favor a full reunion, give it a rest. … Many of us watched with great sadness the tragic deaths of some huge icons in the music world in the past year - Prince, Scott, Bowie and Lemmy. Who would have thought Prince - of all people - would have died at the age of 57? We look at this - and we see how lucky we are that all of the original members of GNR are still with us - and all want to be part of this reunion. Many of us who have been following the band from day one have always dreamed of seeing the original guys back on a stage together - and now that it's so close, we're hoping it becomes a reality - sooner rather than later - because we don't know if they'll all be alive in a year or even six months from now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madison Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 23 hours ago, SoulMonster said: What I find amusing is people who deliberately refuse to accept reality and wear that delusion as some badge of honor, not feeling thes lightest embarassed about admitting it. If I were the one who refused to accept the fact that the band that Axl has been touring with has in fact been Guns N' Roses, which is completely uncontested, then I would be a bit ashamed about trying to redefine reality to suit my personal feelings and abslutely not proudly express that delusion with anything resembling pride. What's next? Should I go about proudly claiming Manchester United isn't Manchester United anymore because I personally dislike how the team is performing? Haha, it is ridiculous. Interesting analogy with Manchester. But let's take this analogy one step further: Queen Elizabeth II, Britain's longest serving monarch, recently celebrated her 90th birthday. We all know who Queen Elizabeth is. Now, let's say a random person on the street started calling herself Queen Elizabeth - and even legally changed her name to Queen Elizabeth. Using your analogy, would this random person now be the Queen of England? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts