Sunset Gardner Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 i don't understand how there is any question weather axl's solo band were employees and CD a solo record. if mick jagger hired musicians to write with and for him and it was Mick and ONLY MICK on the record would it be a Rolling Stones record? yes or no. or just a Mick record? if you saw Mick Jagger in concert and it was ONLY MICK with a band he hired, would you say that you saw The Rolling Stones? yes or no. or would you say you just saw mick jagger? simple yes or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackieloveless Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 NO & NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoSoRose Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 WFA? BBA? Randy? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post dcon Posted March 16, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted March 16, 2017 No... I think he would at a minimum need to keep around keyboard player too. Let's be reasonable. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangerInThisTown Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 It's different with every bands situation. The Cult changed line up many times, only Ian Astbury and Billy Duffy stayed and that was enough for 99% of the fanbase. That would not be enough for RS or GNR (who was off even worse than TC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Jay Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Is it Guns N' Rosew without Izzy? Without Adler? Without Ole Beich? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Jay Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) The record company gave Axl millions of dollars to record a Guns N' Roses record. Period. So why should the fans care if it was really GnR. Of course it was. Unless Slash and Duff are just employees for Axl's solo band now. Edited March 16, 2017 by Silent Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaghetti Guy Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 or Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanity_lost Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 If my ticket said I was seeing the Rolling Stones then I would say I saw the Rolling Stones. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Tom-Ass Posted March 16, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted March 16, 2017 The CD Era was not Guns N' Roses.. The quality of the music isn't even in the same stratosphere either. Things should never had transpired the way they did.. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsfan Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 A fine line we walk.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxlRoseCDII Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 GN'R would never be accepted without DJ Ashba and Chris Pitman...the fact Axl tried to whore the Guns name without these integral song writers is a stain on the legacy of the band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BorderlineCrazy Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 I think it depends on how you see it. If you think of GNR as a brand, then yeah, you see what the ticket says you see. If you think of them as a band, then no, if the band is not there anymore, you're seeing something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
default_ Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Fuckin no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhazUp Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Would it be The Rolling Stones? Yes. Would it be the same band? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Cavalerra Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Yes, it will be Stones record, and yes, but if somebody buy me ticket i'll go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cremefraiche Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) Ronnie Wood, who has played guitar for the Rolling Stones since 1975, only officially became part of the band/partnership in the the 90s, for perspective. Plenty of popular bands operate this way- dependent on who owns the name- so I've never understood why it's such a big issue for this band. OP is misleading anyway, if Mick hired musicians for a project while the Rolling Stones were still active, then yes it'd be a Mick solo record. However, if Keith Richards and Ronnie Wood left the band and Mick had rights to the name, and hired guitarists they'd be the new guitar players in the Rolling Stones... Edit: Just to clarify this just is me thinking objectively. My opinion on Chinese Democracy would have been the same regardless of whether it was under Guns N' Roses or a different name Edited March 16, 2017 by cremefraiche 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 I would call it The Stones. Mainly because it's just a live show. And with the Stones when I saw them I wouldn't necessarily know any better and may not care because they were an older band to me. If Roger Wayers was Pink Floyd and they played The Wall, no questions from me. Same might apply for GNR. But I knew more. In 99 I was more like let's see where this goes. I didn't necessarily have moral point of view for bands. To me loss of OG members has a history in rock and GNR just lost more than the rest. Kind of expected. Axl was the only one that didn't die, I get it. If Axl was waving dick around saying fuck them, then maybe go fuck him. But he seemed to have a case. The feud was rock n roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-W.A.R- Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) no it wouldn't be "The Rolling Stones" but could be accepted if they still maintained quality output If Nu-Guns built a foundation with quality output and didn't become a revolving door of musicians they would be better received. Edited March 16, 2017 by -W.A.R- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 5 hours ago, Silent Jay said: Is it Guns N' Rosew without Izzy? Without Adler? Without Ole Beich? Yes but they just aren't touring. To me they are still in GNR. Same goes for Bucket or whoever. Everyone gets so spiritual about 5 guys. That still exists but more so because it doesnt happen. If Izzy and Adler had stayed by now we'd be bitching about them. Or maybe we'd be saying the last 3 cds are too generic. Who knows? The thing you can't have always seems perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickS77 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 What a stupid question. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricA Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Mick + hired musicians = Stones -> NO Axl + hired musicians = GnR -> NO other example : Paul McCartney + hired musicians = Beatles -> NO 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorbear Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 4 hours ago, cremefraiche said: OP is misleading anyway, if Mick hired musicians for a project while the Rolling Stones were still active, then yes it'd be a Mick solo record. However, if Keith Richards and Ronnie Wood left the band and Mick had rights to the name, and hired guitarists they'd be the new guitar players in the Rolling Stones... I wholeheartedly agree with this. Whether I as a fan like the new incarnation of a band or not is irrelevant. Iron Maiden was still Iron Maiden with or without Paul Dianno, Clive Burr, Adrian Smith, Bruce Dickinson or Blaze Bayley. Which line-up you as a fan prefer is up to you, but to claim that the band can no longer operate under the same name as before seems like nonsense to me. I think some of this nonsense comes from the lack of output or touring in the period after Spagetti Incident when Slash, Duff and Sorum left. What if they had put out an album between each member leaving. After Lies Adler leaves, after YUI Izzy leaves, after Spaggeti incident Slash leaves, after a new album in say 98 Sorum leaves and then in 2000 Duff leaves. At what point would it no longer be Guns N Roses? Nonsense I say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derick Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Like it or hate it, Guns N'Roses has been Axl's solo project since 1985. From the very first lineup to current one. He had partners who, at least, helped give birth to the band´s name(that one with Izzy,Gardner and Cia), had other partners that helped make the band reach the stars (Classic lineup) and a mosaic of others who accompanied him on an ambitious project called Chinese Democracy. So, yes. Rolling Stones, I really don´t know that much about they history .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Get In the Ring Motherfker Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 29 minutes ago, Thorbear said: I wholeheartedly agree with this. Whether I as a fan like the new incarnation of a band or not is irrelevant. Iron Maiden was still Iron Maiden with or without Paul Dianno, Clive Burr, Adrian Smith, Bruce Dickinson or Blaze Bayley. Which line-up you as a fan prefer is up to you, but to claim that the band can no longer operate under the same name as before seems like nonsense to me. I think some of this nonsense comes from the lack of output or touring in the period after Spagetti Incident when Slash, Duff and Sorum left. What if they had put out an album between each member leaving. After Lies Adler leaves, after YUI Izzy leaves, after Spaggeti incident Slash leaves, after a new album in say 98 Sorum leaves and then in 2000 Duff leaves. At what point would it no longer be Guns N Roses? Nonsense I say! Maybe I am mistaken, but I think Duff exited in 97' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts