Jump to content

They should play something from Slash


Recommended Posts

I think it's pretty obvious by now that Axl expects his bandmates to perform all songs released under the name GNR, but he does not consider songs released by his current bandmates outside of the GNR umbrella to be fair game. That's Axl for you.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Fact: if GN'R play VR that will be two/five Velvet Revolver members present. For Slash and Duff this would not be a 'cover'.

Fact: most see Guns as being embodied by the Appetite line-up, or at a minimum, Axl, Slash and Duff. There were two/five Appetite-members present in Velvet Revolver as opposed to Nugnr's one/five. There is a reason people call the latter 'fake Guns'.

Who is covering who here?

The singer is obviously the most important piece of the puzzle. If it's not Axl singing first of all, it's not something that can be considered to be GNR. That is why VR are not more GNR than the trainwreck that was nuguns. Even though nuguns had Axl, that was the only piece of the puzzle they had right, VR had more of it complete, but they missed the most important component. Both these bands covered the artist formerly known as Guns N Roses in all honesty. VR were smart enough to realize that and created their own brand, Axl wasn't.

Edited by StrangerInThisTown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

The singer is obviously the most important piece of the puzzle. If it's not Axl singing first of all, it's not something that can be considered to be GNR. That is why VR are not more GNR than the trainwreck that was nuguns. Even though nuguns had Axl, that was the only piece of the puzzle they had right, VR had more of it complete, but they missed the most important component. Both these bands covered the artist formerly known as Guns N Roses in all honesty. VR were smart enough to realize that and created their own brand, Axl wasn't.

I do not necessarily agree with that but then I always preferred Slash and Izzy in Guns, and have never been the biggest Axl fan.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

The singer is obviously the most important piece of the puzzle. If it's not Axl singing first of all, it's not something that can be considered to be GNR. That is why VR are not more GNR than the trainwreck that was nuguns. Even though nuguns had Axl, that was the only piece of the puzzle they had right, VR had more of it complete, but they missed the most important component. Both these bands covered the artist formerly known as Guns N Roses in all honesty. VR were smart enough to realize that and created their own brand, Axl wasn't.

Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, ACDC. They all lost their singer(s) at one time or another but they all continued very successfully.

Do you disagree?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

The singer is obviously the most important piece of the puzzle. If it's not Axl singing first of all, it's not something that can be considered to be GNR. That is why VR are not more GNR than the trainwreck that was nuguns. Even though nuguns had Axl, that was the only piece of the puzzle they had right, VR had more of it complete, but they missed the most important component. Both these bands covered the artist formerly known as Guns N Roses in all honesty. VR were smart enough to realize that and created their own brand, Axl wasn't.

There's only one thing that made Nu-GnR more GnR than VR:  Axl owned the name.  Otherwise, there are plenty of other bands that lost their lead singer... some very successful bands.... which went on to record and tour under the same name with a new singer (like, you know, Black Sabbath).  Not that I'd have wanted to hear a band called GnR with a different singer than Axl, but with Slash at the helm, any more than I wanted to hear a band called GnR with a different lead guitarist than Slash, but with Axl at the helm.  It all comes down to who owns the name.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Free Bird said:

Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, ACDC. They all lost their singer(s) at one time or another but they all continued very successfully.

Do you disagree?

Syd Barrett also. Would Syd's solo albums be considered ''more Floyd'' than the 1970s Floyd albums?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2016 at 2:17 AM, PsychoKiss344 said:

The only CD songs I would keep in the set would be Chinese and Better.

Replace the other songs with some VR.

Before the tour I would have said no Slash or CD songs. But now that they are playing 3 or 4 CD songs a night. They could and should replace one of those with a Slash song.. My vote goes to Anastasia. I think it would fit in perfectly with the Guns Classics.

Edited by Tom-Ass
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Free Bird said:

Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, ACDC. They all lost their singer(s) at one time or another but they all continued very successfully.

Do you disagree?

My quote was a direct response to Diesels post, aimed specifically at the case of GNR, a band who only ever sported - one - singer. Read the post again back to back with Diesels post I quoted, and not take it by itself alone because it wasn't meant to just be a statement but a direct response. It was not directed at ALL bands who ever existed, you misunderstood the context I've written in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

If Guns N' Roses plays a song written and released by another band then Guns N' Roses would be covering that band. It is that simple.

Hahaha riiiiiiiiiight. So Slash is covering GnR songs when doing a  solo show and VR was covering GnR songs but Axl's NuGnR wasn't covering anything. GTFO man. Stop clinging to the name as if it's the be all end all. By your goofball guidelines there could be no original members in GnR and none of it would be a cover yet you could have Slash, Duff & Axl in a revamped Velvet Revolver but due to name sake any GnR song they played would be a cover. Do you see how stupid your "It is that simple" comment actually is? I'm guessing no you don't. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

My quote was a direct response to Diesels post, aimed specifically at the case of GNR, a band who only ever sported - one - singer. Read the post again back to back with Diesels post I quoted, and not take it by itself alone because it wasn't meant to just be a statement but a direct response. It was not directed at ALL bands who ever existed, you misunderstood the context I've written in.

Still I disagree. You had 2 decades to figure out that the lead guitarist is at least as important to Guns as the singer. Just for the general public. You could go deeper and say without Izzy no more music, without Adler no more swing.

 

It's only the Axl fan boys who do not understand that GNR is more than a name and more than just the singer.

You already failed guys. The proof is this current tour. Kick Frank, Fortus and Melissa out, get Izzy and Steven back, release a record and this tour would be even more successful than it already is.

 

GNR=5/5

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Free Bird said:

Still I disagree. You had 2 decades to figure out that the lead guitarist is at least as important to Guns as the singer. Just for the general public. You could go deeper and say without Izzy no more music, without Adler no more swing.

 

It's only the Axl fan boys who do not understand that GNR is more than a name and more than just the singer.

You already failed guys. The proof is this current tour. Kick Frank, Fortus and Melissa out, get Izzy and Steven back, release a record and this tour would be even more successful than it already is.

 

GNR=5/5

Dude ffs..that's not what I'm saying. You are arguing with me about the completely wrong thing. That was not the point. The point is the claim that VR was more GNR than Nuguns is bullshit because even though you have all the right components in that band, to consider it GNR, or more GNR than nuguns, you are still missing the one you can just not do without.

The reality is people can live without Steven or Izzy on a new album, if all other originals were there. If slash was missing and all others were there, people would go okay this fucking sucks. But no one wants to see a GNR album with Axl not on it. The thought of Axl not singing for GNR is so far removed from peoples perception of things it does not even occur in their brain, and if it happened you could guarantee it would be worse than any other member missing. You can see the evidence in cases where such situation already occured, like you mentioned, ACDC.. ever since Bon died and even though they had massive success with Brian, you STILL have a shit ton of devoted fans saying: "ACDC" died with Bon.

Edited by StrangerInThisTown
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to sound overly sarcastic but Axl is doing Slash a big favor by helping replenish his post divorce bank account. For that amount of money I'm sure Slash would play BeeGees covers. Of course I know it's not just about the money, but it sure can't hurt! :P

Edited by passenger57
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

GN'R is inherent to its members, its personae: Messrs. Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy and to a lesser extent Adler.

So whereever these guys are there are Guns N' Roses? And hence, Guns N' Roses playing a song released by Velvet Revolver wouldn't be covering that song, because, wow, Velvet Revolver, due to having at the time three former members of Guns N' Roses, was actually sort-of Guns N' Roses! That's a very peculiar way of looking at things that flies in the face of norms and conventions on how we understand both what a 'band' is and what a 'cover song' is. And I normally like such contrary thinking, if it only had some benefit.

But if you insist on GN'R not playing a cover song if they were to play a song released by the band Velvet Revolver, then a consequence of this would be that if GN'R were to release a new "Best of" record, then it could contain songs by Velvet Revolver, too. Because after all, with your logic, those wouldn't be covers but be actual Guns N' Roses songs. And, on the flip side, if Velvet Revolver were to release a "Best of", it could include songs released by Guns N' Roses, because, after all, with your logic, these two bands are the same or close enough or at least the songs belong to them both. Does it not strike you how absurd it becomes?

Now you will probably argue that they are not the same, in like 100 %, surely!, but that Velvet Revolver, due to having three former members of GN'R is more like Guns N' Roses than "nuGN'R" ever were. And to save a couple of posts back and forth I will comment on that objection right away: So Guns N' Roses can play Velvet Revolver songs as if they were their own, because Velvet Revolver was 60 % GN'R. Could GN'R play Adler song, too, then, because that band was 20 % GN'R? And surely GN'R can play solo songs froom Izzy Stradlin, because not only is he 20 % GN'R but, I am sure youo agree, he is "the most Guns N' Roses of them all". Where does this end? Where do you draw the lines in your seemingly arbitrary system? In your peculiar view, when the UYI lineup broke down, GN'R wasn't continued in the very band called Guns N' Roses who legally had that name and could point to having gradually transformed from the UYI lineup, instead it became some kind of distributed band separated into small parts, and now, when some of these members have rejoined Guns N' Roses, they can play any of the songs created in the former separated units because, after all, GN'R is "inherent to its members".

The only exception I am sure you make is for the actual band called Guns N' Roses in the period 1995-2015. Songs off CD is not Guns N' Roses songs, right? But songs off Contraband is. Because after all this argument of yours isn't really thought-through but just an attempt to rationalize your subjective opinion that GN'R should play Velvet Revover songs and they wouldn't be covers.

Now you will probably argue that you weren't talking about bands but about musicians. Slash will not be covering anything if he were to play Slither now in Guns N' Roses, because that is his song (I assume). Yeah right, that is changing the goalposts because we have been talking about bands all the time. We have been talking about whether Guns N' Roses would be covering another band if they were to play Velvet Revolver songs, not if any particular band member would be covering another musician.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bono said:

Hahaha riiiiiiiiiight. So Slash is covering GnR songs when doing a  solo show and VR was covering GnR songs but Axl's NuGnR wasn't covering anything.

Yes, as an artist Slash covered Guns N' Roses when he played songs from GN'R's back catalogue at his solo shows.. And when Velvet Revolver was playing Guns N' Roses songs, then Velvet revolver was covering Guns N' Roses songs. But when Guns N' Roses played Guns N' Roses songs, it wasn't covering any other band. It was playing its own songs. That is how it works.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

So whereever these guys are there are Guns N' Roses? And hence, Guns N' Roses playing a song released by Velvet Revolver wouldn't be covering that song, because, wow, Velvet Revolver, due to having at the time three former members of Guns N' Roses, was actually sort-of Guns N' Roses! That's a very peculiar way of looking at things that flies in the face of norms and conventions on how we understand both what a 'band' is and what a 'cover song' is. And I normally like such contrary thinking, if it only had some benefit.

But if you insist on GN'R not playing a cover song if they were to play a song released by the band Velvet Revolver, then a consequence of this would be that if GN'R were to release a new "Best of" record, then it could contain songs by Velvet Revolver, too. Because after all, with your logic, those wouldn't be covers but be actual Guns N' Roses songs. And, on the flip side, if Velvet Revolver were to release a "Best of", it could include songs released by Guns N' Roses, because, after all, with your logic, these two bands are the same or close enough or at least the songs belong to them both. Does it not strike you how absurd it becomes?

Now you will probably argue that they are not the same, in like 100 %, surely!, but that Velvet Revolver, due to having three former members of GN'R is more like Guns N' Roses than "nuGN'R" ever were. And to save a couple of posts back and forth I will comment on that objection right away: So Guns N' Roses can play Velvet Revolver songs as if they were their own, because Velvet Revolver was 60 % GN'R. Could GN'R play Adler song, too, then, because that band was 20 % GN'R? And surely GN'R can play solo songs froom Izzy Stradlin, because not only is he 20 % GN'R but, I am sure youo agree, he is "the most Guns N' Roses of them all". Where does this end? Where do you draw the lines in your seemingly arbitrary system? In your peculiar view, when the UYI lineup broke down, GN'R wasn't continued in the very band called Guns N' Roses who legally had that name and could point to having gradually transformed from the UYI lineup, instead it became some kind of distributed band separated into small parts, and now, when some of these members have rejoined Guns N' Roses, they can play any of the songs created in the former separated units because, after all, GN'R is "inherent to its members".

The only exception I am sure you make is for the actual band called Guns N' Roses in the period 1995-2015. Songs off CD is not Guns N' Roses songs, right? But songs off Contraband is. Because after all this argument of yours isn't really thought-through but just an attempt to rationalize your subjective opinion that GN'R should play Velvet Revover songs and they wouldn't be covers.

Now you will probably argue that you weren't talking about bands but about musicians. Slash will not be covering anything if he were to play Slither now in Guns N' Roses, because that is his song (I assume). Yeah right, that is changing the goalposts because we have been talking about bands all the time. We have been talking about whether Guns N' Roses would be covering another band if they were to play Velvet Revolver songs, not if any particular band member would be covering another musician.

 

Look at it this way,

I don't like The Beatles because it is called 'The Beatles'' (and could theoretically be a name transferable to other musicians). I like The Beatles because of what it represents: John, Paul, George, Ringo. For 'Beatles' read 'John, Paul, George, Ringo'. Conversely, whenever they assemble it is 'The Beatles'.

For me, 'Guns' equates 'Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy, Adler'. The closer you get to that is the closer you get to bona fide 'Guns N' Roses'. The further one moves away from, 'Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy, Adler', the further one moves away from 'Guns N' Roses'.

You obviously put a lot more store in name ownership which is a different way at looking at things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Look at it this way,

I don't like The Beatles because it is called 'The Beatles'' (and could theoretically be a name transferable to other musicians). I like The Beatles because of what it represents: John, Paul, George, Ringo. For 'Beatles' read 'John, Paul, George, Ringo'. Conversely, whenever they assemble it is 'The Beatles'.

For me, 'Guns' equates 'Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy, Adler'. The closer you get to that is the closer you get to bona fide 'Guns N' Roses'. The further one moves away from, 'Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy, Adler', the further one moves away from 'Guns N' Roses'.

You obviously put a lot more store in name ownership which is a different way at looking at things.

I don't like Guns N' Roses because of its name, either, I like the band because of its music. But regardless of why we like the bands we like -- whether it is the band members or the music or whatever -- it doesn't give us the right to refuse to acknowledge the names of bands. We can dislike it as much as we want, but it is what it is. And this brings us to covers, Velvet Revolver simply ISN'T Guns N' Roses. You can close your eyes to reality as much as you want, but it is a different band by all conventional definitions of what a 'band' is. And hence, if Guns N' Roses were to play 'Slither', that WOULD be a cover, regardless of whether you in your entirely subjective opinion think that Velvet Revolver was closer to what you wanted GN'R to be, or whether the current lineup of GN'R contains band members who helped write that song. It is still a cover. This all boils down to the fact that we cannot redefine terms ('band' or 'cover') just to substantiate whatever opinion we might have. The world doesn't work that way. Otherwise the true reasons for why we think the way we do, and like what we like, and want what we like -- which are the interesting parts of us and should be brought out -- gets lost in semantics and idiosyncratic definitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't like Guns N' Roses because of its name, either, I like the band because of its music. But regardless of why we like the bands we like -- whether it is the band members or the music or whatever -- it doesn't give us the right to refuse to acknowledge the names of bands. We can dislike it as much as we want, but it is what it is. And this brings us to covers, Velvet Revolver simply ISN'T Guns N' Roses. You can close your eyes to reality as much as you want, but it is a different band by all conventional definitions of what a 'band' is. And hence, if Guns N' Roses were to play 'Slither', that WOULD be a cover, regardless of whether you in your entirely subjective opinion think that Velvet Revolver was closer to what you wanted GN'R to be, or whether the current lineup of GN'R contains band members who helped write that song. It is still a cover. This all boils down to the fact that we cannot redefine terms ('band' or 'cover') just to substantiate whatever opinion we might have. The world doesn't work that way. Otherwise the true reasons for why we think the way we do, and like what we like, and want what we like -- which are the interesting parts of us and should be brought out -- gets lost in semantics and idiosyncratic definitions.

Bollocks.

Tell me, do you regard the playing of, say Buffalo Springfield songs in a Neil Young solo set 'covers', 'Mr Soul', etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Bollocks.

Tell me, do you regard the playing of, say Buffalo Springfield songs in a Neil Young solo set 'covers', 'Mr Soul', etc?

I guess you can surmise the answer from this earlier post:

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, as an artist Slash covered Guns N' Roses when he played songs from GN'R's back catalogue at his solo shows.. And when Velvet Revolver was playing Guns N' Roses songs, then Velvet revolver was covering Guns N' Roses songs. But when Guns N' Roses played Guns N' Roses songs, it wasn't covering any other band. It was playing its own songs. That is how it works.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, as an artist Slash covered Guns N' Roses when he played songs from GN'R's back catalogue at his solo shows.. And when Velvet Revolver was playing Guns N' Roses songs, then Velvet revolver was covering Guns N' Roses songs. But when Guns N' Roses played Guns N' Roses songs, it wasn't covering any other band. It was playing its own songs. That is how it works.

I can tell you now that they (Springfield songs) are not considered 'covers', neither are CSNY songs.

And regarding, ''it doesn't give us the right to refuse to acknowledge the names of bands'', I can jolly well refuse to acknowledge anything I desire. Nugnr was an abomination and faker than a tranny's fanny. 

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

I can tell you now that they (Springfield songs) are not considered 'covers', neither are CSNY songs.

If an artist plays a song by another band, then that is a cover per definition. If, on the other hand, an artist plays songs she wrote while in another band, then she wouldn't be covering anthing except herself, and then it is not really a cover. If Neil Young considers those songs not to be covers it must be understood that he considers them his own songs - written entirely by himself so no covering takes place. Fair enough. His bandmates in Springfield and CSNY might not necessarily agree with that, though.

This doesn't at all apply to Guns N' Roses, though. If GN'R played 'Slither' it would be a cover, because GN'R is not a single artist who made that song while in another band. GN'R is a band, and even if some of the current band members did help in writing 'Slither', it would still be a cover for GN'R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

If an artist plays a song by another band, then that is a cover per definition. If, on the other hand, an artist plays songs she wrote while in another band, then she wouldn't be covering anthing except herself, and then it is not really a cover. If Neil Young considers those songs not to be covers it must be understood that he considers them his own songs - written entirely by himself so no covering takes place. Fair enough. His bandmates in Springfield and CSNY might not necessarily agree with that, though.

This doesn't at all apply to Guns N' Roses, though. If GN'R played 'Slither' it would be a cover, because GN'R is not a single artist who made that song while in another band. GN'R is a band, and even if some of the current band members did help in writing 'Slither', it would still be a cover for GN'R.

For 2/5s 'Slither' is not a cover. Using the term 'cover' with a song like 'Slither' reduces the song to an outright cover such as 'The Seeker', failing to acknowledge that this song was created by 2/5 members present before you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, passenger57 said:

Not to sound overly sarcastic but Axl is doing Slash a big favor by helping replenish his post divorce bank account. For that amount of money I'm sure Slash would play BeeGees covers. Of course I know it's not just about the money, but it sure can't hurt! :P

And Axl was playing Vegas residencies, private parties and bowling alleys. Now he's back on the big stage, the least he can do is sing Slither :P

Edited by MillionsOfSpiders
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

For 2/5s 'Slither' is not a cover. Using the term 'cover' with a song like 'Slither' reduces the song to an outright cover such as 'The Seeker', failing to acknowledge that this song was created by 2/5 members present before you.

There are no such thing as "outright cover", or "2/5 cover", or "slightly cover", or "mostly cover", and so on. Nowhere have I seen such terms, not in any concert reviews, setlists, liner notes, interviews, etc. A song either IS a cover or it ISN'T. This is just something you make up on the fly. Again you are trying to change the world to accomodate your unconventional opinions and definitions. It is entertaining at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

There are no such thing as "outright cover", or "2/5 cover", or "slightly cover", or "mostly cover", and so on. Nowhere have I seen such terms, not in any concert reviews, setlists, liner notes, interviews, etc. A song either IS a cover or it ISN'T. This is just something you make up on the fly. Again you are trying to change the world to accomodate your unconventional opinions and definitions. It is entertaining at least.

So you are not even going to accommodate the fact that, if GN'R play 'Slither', you will be witnessing two of the creators playing that song? Moving from 'Slither' to 'The Seeker' we are filing a song co-written by Slash and Duff, evident on stage before our eyes, with a song written by Pete Townsend before Guns N' Roses were conceived!!

I suppose you consider Paul McCartney to be ''covering'' a Beatles song when he plays, say, 'We Can Work It Out''?

What an idiot.

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...