Does the NITL Tour validate Chinese Democracy?

[NicoRourke]

16 hours ago, RussTCB said:

Album didn't need validation for me. It was and still is my favorite Guns N Roses album. 

Likewise, though I have all-time favorite songs on other GNR albums as well.

[SoulMonster]

27 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

At the end of the day, if Little Mix acquired the rights to the name ''Guns N' Roses'', subsequently altering their band name and plastering ''Guns N' Roses'' on their album overs, Little Mix and those albums will no more be Guns N' Roses than Rose's ego driven nugnr project was. The essence of Guns N' Roses is disseminated among the Appetite bandmembers and you need a quorum of that band (3/5 say?) to produce something that can legitimately be called Guns N' Roses. 

This isn't up to your subjective feelings on "essence". You don't define what 'Guns N' Roses' is outside of your own head.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

This isn't up to your subjective feelings on "essence". You don't define what 'Guns N' Roses' is outside of your own head.

Question: if Little Mix purchased the name Guns N' Roses and switched their name accordingly, would you regard that girl-group as legitimately ''Guns N' Roses''?

[soon]

Existential conversations should be ghettoized to their own thread! Along with censored Axl tweets and pics of Ashba.

[Stress Fracture]

Despite CD songs being played by Slash and Duff on the tour, I think Axl and Slash settling their differences does more to invalidate everything that happened under the GNR name between 1996-2016. Likewise, Slither isn’t now validated as a GNR song because Axl has agreed to cover it live with Slash and Duff.

[wasted]

31 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Question: if Little Mix purchased the name Guns N' Roses and switched their name accordingly, would you regard that girl-group as legitimately ''Guns N' Roses''?

If half the set is covers I’ll consider it. 

[SoulMonster]

26 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Question: if Little Mix purchased the name Guns N' Roses and switched their name accordingly, would you regard that girl-group as legitimately ''Guns N' Roses''?

According to the definition of "legitimate" being "according to the law", then yes, I would of course regard the new entity as "Guns N' Roses". Because it would legally be "Guns N' Roses". No amount of huffing and puffing from me would change that fact. Just like no amount of huffing and puffing from people can change the fact that Chinese Democracy was released by Guns N' Roses. It is what it is.

But what I could, and likely would, say, though, is something to the extent of 'I don't like this new version of Guns N' Roses' or 'I preferred Guns N' Roses before'.

See? I don't make the mistake of changing definitions just because I can't handle a band taking a turn for the worse; through clever ways of expressing myself I still get my disappointment across without making a fool of myself.

 

 

[DieselDaisy]

4 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

According to the definition of "legitimate" being "according to the law", then yes, I would of course regard the new entity as "Guns N' Roses". Because it would legally be "Guns N' Roses". No amount of huffing and puffing from me would change that fact. Just like no amount of huffing and puffing from people can change the fact that Chinese Democracy was released by Guns N' Roses. It is what it is.

But what I could, and likely would, say, though, is something to the extent of 'I don't like this new version of Guns N' Roses' or 'I preferred Guns N' Roses before'.

See? I don't make the mistake of changing definitions just because I can't handle a band taking a turn for the worse; through clever ways of expressing myself I still get my disappointment across without making a fool of myself.

 

 

Thanks; that is what I wanted to hear: so we've now established you'd regard pick any band-incarnation conceivable no matter how bereft of 1985-93 characters, and how utterly awful and regard that incarnation ''Guns N' Roses'' then, provided they were custodians of the name. Presumably you'd regard posthumous line-ups, i.e. GN'R bands existing long after Rose and Slash have shuffled off this mortal coil, legitimately ''Guns N' Roses'' also (it is not saw far-fetched considering we already live in the age of the ''hologram rocker'', and Kiss have talked about Kiss outlasting Simmons/Stanley)?

Nope, I choose to employ a rather different interpretation on what constitutes a band than your strictly legal definition. You don't fall in love with, become a fan of, a piece of paper pertaining to copyright ownership after all. 

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Thanks; that is what I wanted to hear: so we've now established you'd regard pick any band-incarnation conceivable no matter how bereft of 1985-93 characters, and how utterly awful and regard that incarnation ''Guns N' Roses'' then, provided they were custodians of the name. Presumably you'd regard posthumous line-ups, i.e. GN'R bands existing long after Rose and Slash have shuffled off this mortal coil, legitimately ''Guns N' Roses'' also (it is not saw far-fetched considering we already live in the age of the ''hologram rocker'', and Kiss have talked about Kiss outlasting Simmons/Stanley)?

Nope, I choose to employ a rather different interpretation on what constitutes a band than your strictly legal definition. You don't fall in love with a piece of paper after all. 

Neither do I "fall in love with a piece of paper". I fall in love with music. Not a "band". Not even a particular "lineup".

That being said, as a kid I thought the AFD lineup was the coolest ever. Nothing will come close to them. But that lineup is long gone. Even if those players came together, it wouldn't be the same. You can't recrate something that is so contextual. Nothing I can do about it. Certainly not crying over the fact that the band still exist. For that I am actually grateful.

Nonetheless, the songs remain the same and that's what matters. 

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Neither do I "fall in love with a piece of paper". I fall in love with music. Not a "band". Not even a particular "lineup".

That being said, as a kid I thought the AFD lineup was the coolest ever. Nothing will come close to them. But that lineup is long gone. Even if those players came together, it wouldn't be the same. You can't recrate something that is so contextual. Nothing I can do about it. Certainly not crying over the fact that the band still exist. For that I am actually grateful.

This is irrelevant to my point. We are discussing legitimacy, not quality. The Stones produced some utterly awful albums in the 1980s whilst being thoroughly bona fide.

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Nonetheless, the songs remain the same and that's what matters. 

Then you'll look forward to Little Mix's interpretation of those said songs? I hope you keep your GN'R website suitably updated with post-Rose line-up endeavours and/or holographic performances?

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

This is irrelevant to my point. We are discussing legitimacy, not quality. T

As I said, unless you want to redefine what "legitimate" means, Chinese Democracy was a legitimate release by Guns N' Roses. You might not like it, but again, your subjective feelings don't hold the power to redefine terms. Sooorry.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

As I said, unless you want to redefine what "legitimate" means, Chinese Democracy was a legitimate release by Guns N' Roses. You might not like it, but again, your subjective feelings don't hold the power to redefine terms. Sooorry.

Just as, now owners of and operating under the GN'R name, Little Mix's album would be ''legitimate'' - yes, I know, we have already established that that is how you interpret proceedings?

[Len Cnut]

Quote

redefine what "legitimate"

OK, legitimate would be a release by the members or at least by a group that comprises of the majority of the members that made and played the music that made Guns n Roses famous and establishing what a person means when they say 'Guns n Roses' in the minds of the general population.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Just as, now owners of and operating under the GN'R name, Little Mix's album would be ''legitimate'' - yes, I know, we have already established that that is how you interpret proceedings?

If Little Mix owned "Guns N' Roses" then yes, any albums he released under that name would be released by "Guns N' Roses". It really is simple.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

If Little Mix owned "Guns N' Roses" then yes, any albums he released under that name would be released by "Guns N' Roses". It really is simple.

...and you'll keep your website suitably updated when Jesy, Leigh-Anne, Jade and Perrie are doing their gyrations live onstage to the music of ''Jungle''? 

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

OK, legitimate would be a release by the members or at least by a group that comprises of the majority of the members that made and played the music that made Guns n Roses famous and establishing what a person means when they say 'Guns n Roses' in the minds of the general population.

I tend to go with what dictionaries say more than what the "general population" may think. Not disregarding the fact that what the general population may think may change definitions over time, but I don't think we are quite there yet for this term. If we were to go with your attempt at a definition for "legitimate", then Fleetwood Mac albums post-1970 wouldn't be "Fleetwood Mac". And probably numerous other examples, too. It doesn't hold water. 

The way I see it, most people have no problems accepting the fact that CD was released by GN'R. They might respond with "huh?", "never heard of that" or something to that extent when asked, but they wouldn't object to it even if they were to hear that the lineup behind that release was substantially different then the lineup behind Appetite or even UYI. This problem, in my opinion, is just a problem to fans who struggle to accommodate the fact that the band moved in a direction they didn't like, so they refuse to accept facts as if that's gonna change anything. As if accepting the fact that GN'R turned into vastly different from what made them like the band -- or even if it continued to change into a lineup consisting of solely Little Mix -- would somehow degrade the value of the music they like or the lineup they actually liked. Just silliness, really.

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

...and you'll keep your website suitably updated when Jesy, Leigh-Anne, Jade and Perrie are doing their gyrations live onstage to the music of ''Jungle''? 

I'd probably lose interest by then. Why? Do you have a problem with my website?

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I'd probably lose interest by then. Why? Do you have a problem with my website?

Why would you lose interest? They'd be as legally GN'R as any version of GN'R that has ever existed - according to your strict definition?

Edited November 19, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[soon]

IIRC Guns has been two separate legal entities since the 90's? The name as one entity owned by Axl and the corporation as a second (original) entity owned by Axl, Slash and Duff? So a strictly legal argument on the identify of Guns is weakened from the outset, no?

Also, never heard of Little Mix before but they can get it! If they also wanted to be Guns N' Roses I think the gentlemanly thing to do would be to allow them to also be Gun N' Roses.

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by soon

[RussTCB]

I'm happy that I have no idea what a "Little Mix" is 

[SoulMonster]

11 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Why would you lose interest? They'd be as legally GN'R as any version of GN'R that has ever existed - according to your strict definition?

Err, because my interest in Guns N' Roses has nothing to with legalities? 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Err, because my interest in Guns N' Roses has nothing to with legalities? 

It seems to have everything to do with legalities. 

 

[SoulMonster]

11 minutes ago, soon said:

IIRC Guns has been two separate legal entities since the 90's? The name as one entity owned by Axl and the corporation as a second (original) entity owned by Axl, Slash and Duff? So a strictly legal argument on the identify of Guns is weakened from the outset, no?

I have no idea what the picture of those ladies had to do with anything, but it was okay 

If Axl wasn't allowed to release CD under the name/brand "Guns N' Roses" then I am sure Slash et al would have contested that usage through litigation.

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It seems to have everything to do with legalities. 

No, you are just confused  Legitimate has all to do with legalities. What I like has all to do with music. That's why I don't get my panties in a knot from just considering your absurd hypothetical of Little Nuts or whatever taking over the brand/name/band. It doesn't matter to me, because I care about the MUSIC and that is unaffected by such peripheral things.

[soon]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I have no idea what the picture of those ladies had to do with anything, but it was okay 

If Axl wasn't allowed to release CD under the name/brand "Guns N' Roses" then I am sure Slash et al would have contested that usage through litigation.

It's a picture of Little Mix

[SoulMonster]

Just now, soon said:

It's a picture of Little Mix

Oh! Haha  A definite visual upgrade, in my eyes. And by extension, if Guns N' Roses aren't going to release any new music anyway, I am in favor.

[DieselDaisy]

Soul's argument doesn't even make sense legally,

Quote

"This will serve as notice [that] effective [...] Decemeber 30th 1995, I will withdraw from the partnership. [...] I intend to use the name 'Guns N' Roses' in connection with a new group which I will form.