The current line-up and promoting them as band members

[Archtop]

The whole situation with  musicians and GnR  confuses me, who is an official band member and who are extra musicians/touring members?

If you think of other bands The Rolling Stones being the easiest example, Mick, Keith, Ronnie and Charlie are "the Rolling Stones" with Wyman and Taylor the most notable ex members. There are then several extra musicians, amongst others Chuck leavall, Lisa Fischer, Bernard Fowler and Ernie Watts all pretty perminant in terms of longevity who both take to the stage, record and are credited on albums.  A clear distinction however remains between who is a  core band member and who are contributing musicians. 

Gn'R (correct me if I am wrong ) never seems to make this distinction. The way I look at it, you have Axl, Duff, Slash reunited original core members. Frank and Fortus are current replacements. Dizzy I find difficult as he has been in official photos and around for a long time, so you can argue either way. Melissa not detracting from her talent or what she brings to the band I see as a touring member only. She therefor does not bother me in this role.

If the band were to make more (any) effort promoting Guns n Rose as Duff, Axl and Slash would it not make more sense and would there be less speculation? All other contributing musicians would be treated as touring members  and therefor our expectations of them would be less. (I mean this in terms of living up to the GnR name not musically) Would Frank still get as much stick, would Bumblefoot and Pitman been treated as harshly. Should Melissa be cut a break if they are just touring members.

I know It has been suggested that this current line-up looks like the most stable way to move forward, But if the main three promoted themselves as GnR would it matter as much who they were moving fordward with? 

[Słash]

Axl, Duff and Slash are business partners of a company called "Guns N' Roses". Frank, Fortus, Dizzy and Melisa are hired employees and are paid to do their job.

The 3 business partners are promoted and distribute the profits of the merchandise etc etc between each other. 

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by Slash787

[James Bond]

The Who are in the same boat, with Pete and Roger being the only "official" members despite Pino Palladino and Zak Starkey having been with them forever (in Zak's case, something like 25 years). I know Zak was offered a "full" position but declined it and said he's happy with the arrangement.

Jason White played with Green Day for some 12-15 years before finally accepting their offer to be a "full" member.

Dom Brown has been Duran Duran's guitarist for over a decade and he still prefers to be a "hired gun" so to speak and both parties have said they're happy with their agreement. For one - it allows the other four guys to still market themselves as "the original four" in the same way Guns can market Axl, Slash, and Duff as "the original three" which isn't technically an incorrect statement but makes sense from a marketing perspective.

Edited August 15, 2016 by James Bond

[Archtop]

39 minutes ago, Slash787 said:

Axl, Duff and Slash are business partners of a company called "Guns N' Roses". Frank, Fortus, Dizzy and Melisa are hired employees and are paid to do their job.

The 3 business partners are promoted and distribute the profits of the merchandise etc etc between each other. 

 

Yes I am aware of this, it's not  what I am saying. 

At the start of this tour, if there had been a publicity campaign selling Axl, Slash and Duff as GnR would there be less pressure on the other musicians to be excepted within the lineup if they were seen as touring members only? The who are an example of a band currently two original members and all others are touring members only.

 

[Słash]

16 minutes ago, James Bond said:

Jason White played with Green Day for some 12-15 years before finally accepting their offer to be a "full" member.

 

It seems he is again a touring member. 

[Archtop]

@James Bond You got your answer whilst I was still deliberating what to say. it seems to me this might have been a better way to move forward with GnR. 

[James Bond]

26 minutes ago, Slash787 said:

It seems he is again a touring member. 

Well shit. Literally as of a couple days ago.

25 minutes ago, Archtop said:

@James Bond You got your answer whilst I was still deliberating what to say. it seems to me this might have been a better way to move forward with GnR. 

It's almost half and half. The promo has mostly focused on the big three but they aren't entirely hiding the other guys either. It's definitely a unique approach compared to some of the other bands.

[DieselDaisy]

Dizzy has definitely taken a step back from his position in nugnr.

[Asia]

From what I saw, this time more than ever before, the promotion was focused mainly on Axl, Slash and Duff, thus suggesting that this is GNR. I mean, there were already billboards everywhere before we even knew who's gonna be on that stage. Plus, it seems to me, though I may be worng, that most of the promotional materials have the big three on them and only few have also other band members.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Asia

[Original]

Everyone knows GnR (now) is Axl/Slash n Duff.  No one outside of the forums has a clue who the touring musicians are.  They are kind of like say Bieber's backing band- no one gives a rats ass or could name a single employee.  In fact they should really be more in the background than they are IMO.  At least the guys have managed to get Fortus to calm down.  Anyone seen Izzy?  And hopefully Steven shows up again soon.

[NicoRourke]

I understand the focus on the 3 original guys, but to me Frank and Richard are in Guns N' Roses as well. In fact, they are featured in official pictures, inside the CD booklet. What does it say in the NITL tour book? They are listed as band members, not additional players.

[TheSeeker]

With the Rolling Stones, only Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ronnie step to the front of the stage after every show for bows

GNR are nice enough to let Richard/Frank/Dizzy/Melissa join them for bows

[Len Cnut]

12 minutes ago, TheSeeker said:

With the Rolling Stones, only Mick, Keith, Charlie and Ronnie step to the front of the stage after every show for bows

GNR are nice enough to let Richard/Frank/Dizzy/Melissa join them for bows

Another major difference being that The Rolling Stones are 50 times the band GnR are/were/are every likely to be  

[thunderram]

 

4 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

Another major difference being that The Rolling Stones are 50 times the band GnR are/were/are every likely to be  

 

Like the old saying goes, when you feel you have to over-exaggerate a point to make a point -- you have no point. The Stones have a greater legacy, no doubt. But nowhere near 50x.

The Stones are only a bigger band because they've been around nearly twice as long (to this point) and they have a lot more catalog. But at their "height", GN'R was on par or bigger than any rock and roll band not named The Beatles. The Beatles will probably always hold that title.

 

 

[Len Cnut]

Quote

Like the old saying goes, when you feel you have to over-exaggerate a point to make a point -- you have no point.

Yeah, well the new saying goes 'bollocks'

Quote

The Stones have a greater legacy, no doubt. But nowhere near 50x.

I like the presumption here that the 50 was some kind of scientifically worked out statistic

Quote

The Stones are only a bigger band because they've been around nearly twice as long (to this point) and they have a lot more catalog. But at their "height", GN'R was on par or bigger than any rock and roll band not named The Beatles.

Unfortunately the 'if my granny had bollocks she'd be my grandad' argument doesn't really hold any water.  And apart from that you're talking absolute shit.  GnR are in no way shape or form on a par with The Stones, in no way whatsoever.  You SERIOUSLY think GnR were every anywhere near the cultural phenomenon that The Rolling Stones were?  The Rolling Stones could've broken up in 1969 and GnR would still not even be close, The Stones effected fashion, effected culture, The Stones were courted by cultural icons in film, theatre and music, they invented the archetype of the rock n roll band.  Ridiculous argument.

[ZoSoRose]

It's fine how GNR does it. It's clear the actual "band" is Axl, Slash, and Duff but they don't hide the other guys and treat them as members of the band instead of session musicians 

[BadApples87]

Guns N Roses

The Band

Axl Rose, Slash, Duff McKagan

Additional Musicians

Fortus, Ferrer, Reed, Reese

 

Just like the Eagles had a guy playing the guitar parts for Don Felder when he left, but that dude never became a member of the Eagles, just additional musician.

[Archtop]

My original comparison to the Rolling Stones was to illustrate how two bands have managed the coming and going of members of the band and other musicians.

2 hours ago, Asia said:

From what I saw, this time more than ever before, the promotion was focused mainly on Axl, Slash and Duff, thus suggesting that this is GNR. I mean, there were already billboards everywhere before we even knew who's gonna be on that stage. Plus, it seems to me, though I may be worng, that most of the promotional materials have the big three on them and only few have also other band members.

This is the way I feel they should have continued, promoting heavily Axl, slash and Duff as GnR. Keeping the core of the band intact with additional members having less focus than they have now.

1 hour ago, NicoRourke said:

I understand the focus on the 3 original guys, but to me Frank and Richard are in Guns N' Roses as well. In fact, they are featured in official pictures, inside the CD booklet. What does it say in the NITL tour book? They are listed as band members, not additional players.

IMO this contradicts how it started and I can see from the posts that there are mixed views on how we perceive the members of the band.

I know it is a difficult one as you have united different eras on the stage.

@BadApples87 Do you consider the additional Muscians as perminant  members of the band?

[BadApples87]

15 minutes ago, Archtop said:

 

@BadApples87 Do you consider the additional Muscians as perminant  members of the band?

No.

Much like Gilby, Matt, and those other dudes from the NuGuns era, they are just hired Guns that get a VERY nice paycheck from Guns Inc.

From the business side of things, only Axl, Slash, Duff own a part of the corporation.

Edited August 15, 2016 by BadApples87

[Evil Doer]

it doesn't matter how they're labeled..........this current lineup is BADASS!!!!!!!!

[Mendez]

To you all, anyone who isnt from the AFD era is a session musician. To Axl, who ever is consistently playing (not guesting) in the band is part of the band (which is why throughout 1998-2014 he referred to the post UYI band as a band)

[Asia]

1 hour ago, Archtop said:

This is the way I feel they should have continued, promoting heavily Axl, slash and Duff as GnR. Keeping the core of the band intact with additional members having less focus than they have now.

 

Totally agreed, I actually thought at the beginning that that's what they they will do and considered it a great idea. And it saves all the unnecessary drama of someone leaving, being replaced or whatever. A session misician being replaced is not an interesting topic for the press. A band memeber is a completely different story, even if nobody cares about this member or even knows his name.

[Asia]

15 minutes ago, Mendez said:

To you all, anyone who isnt from the AFD era is a session musician. To Axl, who ever is consistently playing (not guesting) in the band is part of the band (which is why throughout 1998-2014 he referred to the post UYI band as a band)

Sorry, but that's BS. If they are "full members of the band" for him, then why the hell they have nothing to say? Why aren't they in the partnership? It's nothing but marketing - "we are a band and these guys are full-time Guns and Roses members" sounds so much batter than "Hey, it's me and my bunch of slaves"

Edited August 15, 2016 by Asia

[Jane M.]

11 minutes ago, Asia said:

Sorry, but that's BS. If they are "full members of the band" for him, then why the hell they have nothing to say? Why aren't they in the partnership? It's nothing but marketing - "we are a band and these guys are full-time Guns and Roses members" sounds so much batter than "Hey, it's me and my bunch of slaves"

Good point!

[BadApples87]

19 minutes ago, Asia said:

Sorry, but that's BS. If they are "full members of the band" for him, then why the hell they have nothing to say? Why aren't they in the partnership? It's nothing but marketing - "we are a band and these guys are full-time Guns and Roses members" sounds so much batter than "Hey, it's me and my bunch of slaves"

They ain't slaves.  They are getting paid VERY WELL to play along side Axl, Slash, and Duff.  Just not as much as those three guys.