Does the NITL Tour validate Chinese Democracy?

[Ratam]

14 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

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

Me too

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

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

How does that affect my argument that if CD is released by a band legally named "Guns N' Roses" then it is legitimately a "Guns N' Roses" record? It doesn't You see, the band could have been dissolved and resurrected, dissolved and resurrected, again and again, and every release would still legitimately be by "Guns N' Roses".

[dgnr]

24 minutes ago, soon said:

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.

 

Oh yeah, I can see it!! In order it's: Duff, Axl, Izzy and Slash, right? Where's Steven, though? 

 

[DieselDaisy]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

How does that affect my argument that if CD is released by a band legally named "Guns N' Roses" then it is legitimately a "Guns N' Roses" record? It doesn't You see, the band could have been dissolved and resurrected, dissolved and resurrected, again and again, and every release would still legitimately be by "Guns N' Roses".

Establishing that the 1985-1995 and 1996-present bands were legally two separate bands, and that the former of those Rose retired from, does rather undermine your argument just a bit. Rose basically used Machiavellianism, dissolving Guns and forming a new band with the same name, in order to con people. It is a bit like those dodgy Yuppie companies who file bankruptcy only to open up shop again under a different name to con their creditors/exploit loopholes. 

Edited November 19, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[Towelie]

Soul Monster strikes me as the kind of person who would go to ludicrous lengths to maintain his position before ever admitting defeat.

I loved Chinese Democracy and had no problems buying into it as a GNR album, but that was mainly because I'm a Guns fan primarily because of Axl. Its like 75% Axl, 25% Slash to me. The others are surplus to requirement to me, as shocking as that may sound, I really have little to no interest in Izzy, Duff or Steven and I think that Axl and Slash would've made an AFD level album with or without the other members.  They are the ones whose star shines brightest on Appetite, hence why they are the only ones who maintained any meaningful career in the years after the original band broke up.

The reason I can accept CD as GNR is because it still has 75% of the reason why I loved the band in the first place. And like it or not, Axl got away with it. It didn't really do any lasting damage to the band's legacy and that is a testament to how much more invested people were in Axl than the other guys. Not many lead singers of a band could continue playing arenas under their former bands moniker, when the other band members were alive and well. It would be too outrageous, too controversial. But Axl did it, and he made a good go of it.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Towelie

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Establishing that the 1985-1995 and 1996-present bands were legally two separate bands, and that the former of those Rose retired from, does rather undermine your argument just a bit. Rose basically used Machiavellianism, dissolving Guns and forming a new band with the same name, in order to con people. It is a bit like those dodgy Yuppie companies who file bankruptcy only to open up shop again under a different name to con their creditors/exploit loopholes. 

But we are not discussing the ethical aspects of how Axl came to hold the band, do we? This is just you doing that typical moving of the goalposts when you struggle in a discussion. We are discussing whether Chinese Democracy was released by GN'R or not. Not whether Axl came to own GN'R by some nefarious process  So no, it doesn't affect my argument one little bit.

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Towelie said:

Soul Monster strikes me as the kind of person who would go to ludicrous lengths to maintain his position before ever admitting defeat.

It is not ludicrous to accept that CD was released by GN'R. It is widely accepted everywhere except by some die-hard fans  Just check official databases, wikipedia, biographies, official record databases etc. It is entirely uncontested.

[DieselDaisy]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But we are not discussing the ethical aspects of how Axl came to hold the band, do we? This is just you doing that typical moving of the goalposts when you struggle in a discussion. We are discussing whether Chinese Democracy was released by GN'R or not. Not whether Axl came to own GN'R by some nefarious process  So no, it doesn't affect my argument one little bit.

I.e., an entirely different band (legally). 

[SoulMonster]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I.e., an entirely different band (legally). 

Still released by Guns N' Roses. So again, CD was a legitimate release by Guns N' Roses.

If you now want to claim that it wasn't technically the same band that released 'Appetite' and released 'CD', because the entity was dissolved and then resurrected/reformed in-between, because you have run out of other arguments, that's fine . It would also mean that the current band is technically not the same band that released 'Appetite' since the current band is a continuation of what Axl formed when the original partnership was dissolved.

Personally I think such arguments are beyond asinine  But then again, I am not the one with my panties in a knot because GN'R released CD.

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by SoulMonster

[Kwick1]

I'm late to this discussion but Chinese Democracy doesn't need to be validated. It's an album by GnR. Could GnR exist without any members of the original 5? Legally likely yes but GnR's soul has and will always be Axl Rose. 

[Towelie]

30 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It is not ludicrous to accept that CD was released by GN'R. It is widely accepted everywhere except by some die-hard fans  Just check official databases, wikipedia, biographies, official record databases etc. It is entirely uncontested.

But we're talking about legitimacy on a level that is not really quantifiable by law. The public and the fans decide whether a band is legitimate or not. Tony Iommi released multiple Sabbath albums in the late 80s despite being the sole original member and the fans voted with their wallets. The albums flopped and Sabbath were playing divebars. The people decided that Iommi's bastardized Sabbath wasn't legitimate. Okay, you can go on Wikipedia and it may still list those late-80s Iommi albums under Black Sabbath's discography, but that doesn't legitimise them in any meaningful way to the people who care about the band.

With Guns it was different. Enough people were prepared to accept Axl's bastardized version of GNR for the band to play decent sized venues for 15yrs. In my mind, this legitimizes Axl's GNR, along with the fact that he alone made up 75% of what appealed to me about the original lineup in the first place.

The whole notion that a band has to have at least 3/5 of its original lineup to be legitimate doesn't factor in how each member may contribute different amounts to said band.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Towelie

[Tom-Ass]

48 minutes ago, Kwick1 said:

GnR's soul has and will always be Axl Rose. 

I think the success of the NITL says other wise.. No Slash right now and this band is pretty much shit...

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, Towelie said:

But we're talking about legitimacy on a level that is not really quantifiable by law. The public and the fans decide whether a band is legitimate or not. 

The public and fans get to decide on whether they like something or not, and whether they're going to buy it. But they don't get to decide on whether something is legitimate or not. Because that actually means something. It literally means something else. And I use "literally" in its proper meaning, too.

Just like I don't get to decide that USA is not "legitimately" USA anymore because I don't like Trump. Or that Manchester United is not "legitimately" Manchester United anymore because I feel they have fallen far since Ferguson. I don't get to decide such things. It is not in my power. Guns N' Roses released Chinese Democracy, USA is still USA, etc. It is simply not up to me no matter how much I might feel about the subject. The world, nor the dictionary, doesn't accommodate my opinions. Sadly, I might add 

I think this is only a problem to fans of the band (compared to fans of the music), because by accepting that CD is part of the band's output they feel the band's legacy is tarnished. So it threatens their fandom. It isn't as "cool" anymore to be a fan of the band. So they try to fight the fact that the band did something they don't like, even by refusing to accept it was the band that did it!

To me, since I only care about the music, GN'R could have released a record of swinging polka songs or Mongolian throat singing and I couldn't care less. I would just not by it and move on. Or rather find is hysterically fascinating. Because I am a fan of the songs that I like and nothing can ruin those songs for me. Not even Guns N' Roses.

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by SoulMonster

[killuridols]

Re: OP

No, it doesn't. At least for me. And I think for the majority of people, mostly casuals, the CD songs played live dont mean a thing.... anyone could do without them ... most people don't know the name of the songs, much less the lyrics.

So, it really doesn't matter if they are played or not and if they are played correctly or not.

There's a collective thought that CD is an album made by Axl with some guys who are not the original GN'R and he can say it is GN'R and have it all legally released under said name but that's a different story. 

[DieselDaisy]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Still released by Guns N' Roses. So again, CD was a legitimate release by Guns N' Roses.

If you now want to claim that it wasn't technically the same band that released 'Appetite' and released 'CD', because the entity was dissolved and then resurrected/reformed in-between, because you have run out of other arguments, that's fine . It would also mean that the current band is technically not the same band that released 'Appetite' since the current band is a continuation of what Axl formed when the original partnership was dissolved.

Personally I think such arguments are beyond asinine  But then again, I am not the one with my panties in a knot because GN'R released CD.

You are completely and coldly disassociating the noun-conjunction-noun ''Guns N' Roses'' from any sort of association and inheritance! Let me ask you this question: why do you put such a premium over name ownership? What could stop me, say, calling a toilet brush ''Guns N' Roses'' thoroughly expecting that toilet brush to be bestowed Guns's fandom and legacy along with name (don't get any merchandising ideas Fernando!)? It is because the name ''Guns N' Roses'' contains within it various cultural associations, not to mention legal and branded, which are recalled in our brains every time we hear ''Guns N' Roses'' or see ''Guns N' Roses'' written down. It is basically why we on this forum do not say things like, ''Abbey Rd is Guns N' Roses's greatest album. Jimmy Page's guitar work is superb on that album''.

You completely unlimber associated imagery from a linguistic definition and you produce anarchy! Why even have a ''Guns N' Roses'' in the first place? It after all has to be associated with something in the past!

(Have you ever studied semiotics? Much of what I am discussing could be academically supported by the field of semiotics, signifiers triggering imagery in our brains and so forth.)

And something which is bought, dissected and judged by the public certainly has to earn its legitimacy, and we are perfectly in our right as human beings to regard something as fake irrespective of copyright ownership. I disagree with you on people not believing nugnr were illegitimate (I seem to recall ''it isn't Guns N' Roses without Slash'' being prevalent among the public). Since Ian Fleming's death there have been numerous officially commissioned James Bond authors; some of their output is great, some terrible, all of it official and therefore technically occurring during the same timeline in which From Russia With Love's events occurred, yet at no point has the post-Fleming Bond novels been awarded the type of canonical paramountcy Fleming's first twelve Bond novels possess. It is simply not going to happen - never!

Edited November 19, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

3 hours ago, Kwick1 said:

I'm late to this discussion but Chinese Democracy doesn't need to be validated. It's an album by GnR. Could GnR exist without any members of the original 5? Legally likely yes but GnR's soul has and will always be Axl Rose. 

Guns were never even that type of band whereby it was just one guy and a bunch of lesser important guys like Mercury and Queen, Morrison and The Doors or (a more extreme example) NIN! I mean they had three main songwriters (Rose/Hudson/Stradlin) and two image laden cartoon rock stars (Axl/Slash) - all of equal stature - and that is probably to do Duff and Adler a vast disservice! During their heyday you had ''Slash fans'' and ''Izzy fans'', just as you had ''Axl fans''! 

[killuridols]

There are two proven facts here:

1) there's no Guns N' Roses without Axl: 2012 RNR Hall Of Fame proves it.

2) There's no Guns N' Roses without Slash: Chinese Democracy album proves it.

And a bonus proven fact: original Guns N' Roses are the only ones who can make successful GN'R albums (AFD, Lies, The Illusions).

[DieselDaisy]

Axl and Slash is the only combination that can draw in the nostalgia loving hordes of uber casuals. I do not even think they'd pay to see a Slashless line-up consisting of Axl/Izzy/Gilby/Duff/Adler line-up.

[Tom-Ass]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Axl and Slash is the only combination that can draw in the nostalgia loving hordes of uber casuals. I do not even think they'd pay to see a Slashless line-up consisting of Axl/Izzy/Gilby/Duff/Adler line-up.

That may have worked back in the day depending on who replaced Slash but not now.

[DieselDaisy]

12 minutes ago, Tom-Ass said:

That may have worked back in the day depending on who replaced Slash but not now.

I don't think you'd get the mammoth crowds seen now, but it would've been more successful than nugnr.

[Sydney Fan]

5 hours ago, Tom-Ass said:

I think the success of the NITL says other wise.. No Slash right now and this band is pretty much shit...

If slash left and axl decided to try his luck and have ashba rejoin, they wouldnt be playing stadiums and arenas. The presence of seeing slash is what is selling tickets.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Sydney Fan

[SoulMonster]

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are completely and coldly disassociating the noun-conjunction-noun ''Guns N' Roses'' from any sort of association and inheritance!

I am not doing anything of the sort -- I am accepting that CD was released by Guns N' Roses 

[DieselDaisy]

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I am not doing anything of the sort -- I am accepting that CD was released by Guns N' Roses 

A meaningless acceptance as we've already established that you'd accept anyone and anything provided they had sufficient ownership credentials to plaster ''Guns N' Roses'' on their product. To quote Hamlet, ''words, words, words''. 

[SoulMonster]

37 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

A meaningless acceptance as we've already established that you'd accept anyone and anything provided they had sufficient ownership credentials to plaster ''Guns N' Roses'' on their product. To quote Hamlet, ''words, words, words''. 

I wouldn't have any problems with anyone or anything plastering "Guns N' Roses" on their products, right, but that doesn't mean I would accept anything as the BAND "Guns N' Roses". A detergent company marketing their latest soap as "Guns N' Roses" would not be a band called "Guns N' Roses". The guys that released CD comprised, on the other hand, legitimately, a band called "Guns N' Roses".

You are a bit unhinged.

Edited November 20, 2018 by SoulMonster

[Sydney Fan]

11 hours ago, Tom-Ass said:

I think the success of the NITL says other wise.. No Slash right now and this band is pretty much shit...

Pretty much it. Lets see the band play arenas or stadiums if slash  left and ashba came back.