Poll: What do we as fans and consumers want?

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The Mac are a band who shaped two consecutive identities though, and had their biggest success during the second of those. I would say their situation is somewhat unique, although Purple did something similar. Megadeth were conceived as a one man/revolving door type operation, like a Newgnr but from the onset. Guns were conceived as an amalgam of constituent parts. Slash's guitar is more identifiable as ''Guns N' Roses'' than Chris Poland is for Megadeth. You remove Slash and you do not have Guns N' Roses's quintessential (non-vocal) sound. 

Are you saying that Guns N' Roses is the only band still touring under the same name despite only one founding member being present? 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Are you saying that Guns N' Roses is the only band still touring under the same name despite only one founding member being present? 

There have been a few  bands who have done this, the prevalent feeling being that they're a ''con'' and usually seen as a failure artistically/commercially, destined for Vegas casinos and revival circuits - NB that the genuine greats managed to retain a core - at least a two man quorum - of personnel intact: Beatles (only Ringo not a founder), Stones (Jagger/Richards/Watts), Aerosmith, etc. Heck, I'd argue that The Who and Kiss both struggle with legitimacy in some measure and they have two founding members still whereas Newgnr had one!

 

[SoulMonster]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

There have been a few  bands who have done this, the prevalent feeling being that they're a ''con'' and usually seen as a failure artistically/commercially, destined for Vegas casinos and revival circuits - NB that the genuine greats managed to retain a core - at least a two man quorum - of personnel intact: Beatles (only Ringo not a founder), Stones (Jagger/Richards/Watts), Aerosmith, etc. Heck, I'd argue that The Who and Kiss both struggle with legitimacy in some measure and they have two founding members still whereas Newgnr had one!

So you reject all the latest releases of Yes, then, since they have zero original members left in their lineup? Same goes for Blackfoot; Blood, Sweat and Tears; Thin Lizzy; Heart; The Hollies, etc? And for internal consistency, I assume you rejected GN'R after Izzy left since by then there was only one founding member left in that band (or two if you insist on including Duff)?

What we have here is people who refuse to acknowledge CD as a record released by GN'R, coming up with various different explanations for this deviation from what is otherwise a trivial fact, but I do get the sense that it really just is bitterness over what happened to the band, rather than universally applied and consistent idiosyncratic rules on what constitutes a band. Again, a coping mechanism for fans who are emotionally invested in being fans of a band and rather than accept the loss as the band grew into something they dislike, they conjure aberrant definitions of what a band is to keep their investment intact.

Edited February 16, 2019 by SoulMonster

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

So you reject all the latest releases of Yes, then, since they have zero original members left in their lineup? Same goes for Blackfoot; Blood, Sweat and Tears; Thin Lizzy; Heart; The Hollies, etc? And for internal consistency, I assume you rejected GN'R after Izzy left since by then there was only one founding member left in that band (or two if you insist on including Duff)?

Yes. And Lizzy changed their name to the Black Star Riders so they obviously had some scruples. Most of those groups can be found at the bottom end of Vegas revival packages I'm sure.

As I said it erodes each time a key personae has been lopped-off. It is a bit subjective, relying on fan preferences and whether one judges the requirements by touring or writing, but I can certainly say that Guns needs a base quorum of Axl and Slash.

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What we have here is people who for various and different reasons refuse to acknowledge CD as a record released by GN'R, but I do get the sense that it really just is bitterness over what happened to the band, rather than universally applied and consistent idiosyncratic rules on what constitutes a band. Again, a coping mechanism for fans who are emotionally invested in being fans of a band and rather than accept the loss  as the band grow into something they dislike, they conjure aberrant definitions of what a band is to keep their investment intact.

Well I cannot very well be affiliated with the opinion of others here. Obviously everyone has their own perspective on this.

[SoulMonster]

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

 It is a bit subjective, relying on fan preferences and whether one judges the requirements by touring or writing, but I can certainly say that Guns needs a base quorum of Axl and Slash.

It is entirely subjective. Which is why it doesn't work as a rule on what constitutes a particular band.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

It is entirely subjective. Which is why it doesn't work as a rule on what constitutes a particular band.

Not really when viewed from the heightened importance of an Axl and a Slash, a John and a Paul, a Mick and a Keith, etc. Objectively their respective bands would cease to exist if those duos were broken asunder. 

[SoulMonster]

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Not really when viewed from the heightened importance of an Axl and a Slash, a John and a Paul, a Mick and a Keith, etc. Objectively their respective bands would cease to exist if those duos were broken asunder. 

You don't even know what subjective means 

[DieselDaisy]

34 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You don't even know what subjective means 

Show me somebody who could've accepted a Beatles without John (or vice versa) and I'll show you a liar. Thus objectivity becomes the default position (as nobody could subjectively contemplate the alternative).

[Len Cnut]

56 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Not really when viewed from the heightened importance of an Axl and a Slash, a John and a Paul, a Mick and a Keith, etc. Objectively their respective bands would cease to exist if those duos were broken asunder. 

It'd be interesting to know how the dynamic of Axl and Slash functioned in GnR.  Because in terms of Mick and Keith, John and Paul, they sort of wrote the songs together and we the kinda necleus of the band in that sense, is the same strictly applicable to Axl and Slash?  if I'm not mistaken the authorship of GnR songs was always kind of a free-for-all and certainly not something anchored around the specific dynamic of Axl and Slash.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

It'd be interesting to know how the dynamic of Axl and Slash functioned in GnR.  Because in terms of Mick and Keith, John and Paul, they sort of wrote the songs together and we the kinda necleus of the band in that sense, is the same strictly applicable to Axl and Slash?  if I'm not mistaken the authorship of GnR songs was always kind of a free-for-all and certainly not something anchored around the specific dynamic of Axl and Slash.

Still don't think there is no Guns without Slash. I'm only really using Axl and Slash as the most minimalist quorum. 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Show me somebody who could've accepted a Beatles without John (or vice versa) and I'll show you a liar. Thus objectivity becomes the default position (as nobody could subjectively contemplate the alternative).

Are you seriously arguing that by using the most well-known band in the world, which barely had any lineup changes in their short but incredible productive life, and hence are cemented forever as being those four guys, you are somehow efficiently making a point that your rule isn't subjective? 

That being said, I would have no problems accepting Beatles with only Paul. It would be absurd, sure, and unwise of Paul, absolutely, but I would never be so silly I'd claim it wasn't Beatles any more, because that is not up to me to decide. You know what I would say? Something along the lines of, "I wish they had ended Beatles when John, George and Ringo quit/died/left" or "I really prefer Beatles with Paul, John, Ringo and George and not the version of the band we have now". Which is what most sensible people say about what happened with GN'R, because, you know, they don't have to perform mental sommersaults to keep the band pure and pristine for their own sake.

[Len Cnut]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Still don't think there is no Guns without Slash. I'm only really using Axl and Slash as the most minimalist quorum. 

I agree with you.  In fact I'd extend that to include Duff and Izzy too...Adler even if we're talking about the sound I feel most fit.  I think it depends on the band too, some bands have a revolving set up to begin with, a kind of a malleable chemistry, either that or they just made really flukily good choices in replacement members.  For example Red Hot Chilli Peppers, mindblowingly good guitarist in Hillel Slovak...then they get John Frusciante.  Or Klinghoffer.  And Keidis and Flea are the mainstays.  Their line up pre first album wasn't even there for the first album then reconvened for the second one.  PiL never had the same line up for even one album until recent years. 

The trouble with Guns is that they were only good with Axl and Slash so I guess your point is correct, those other notions are only really applicable if the band has shown something of worth outside of Axl and Slash which they haven't really.

[Len Cnut]

11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Are you seriously arguing that by using the most well-known band in the world, which barely had any lineup changes in their short but incredible productive life, and hence are cemented forever as being those four guys, you are somehow efficiently making a point that your rule isn't subjective? 

That being said, I would have no problems accepting Beatles with only Paul. It would be absurd, sure, and unwise of Paul, absolutely, but I would never be so silly I'd claim it wasn't Beatles any more, because that is not up to me to decide. You know what I would say? Something along the lines of, "I wish they had ended Beatles when John, George and Ringo quit/died/left" or "I really prefer Beatles with Paul, John, Ringo and George and not the version of the band we have now". Which is what most sensible people say about what happened with GN'R, because, you know, they don't have to perform mental sommersaults to keep the band pure and pristine for their own sake.

It essentially amounts to the same thing though, doesn't it?  I mean the concern of fans is not regarding what legal paperwork states about a given musical entity, its more to do with how one feels about the music made by a given collection of a certain name.  And when that collective isn't the same anymore its reasonable to assume that one might feel that it is not the same thing that went under that name. 

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Are you seriously arguing that by using the most well-known band in the world, which barely had any lineup changes in their short but incredible productive life, and hence are cemented forever as being those four guys, you are somehow efficiently making a point that your rule isn't subjective? 

That being said, I would have no problems accepting Beatles with only Paul. It would be absurd, sure, and unwise of Paul, absolutely, but I would never be so silly I'd claim it wasn't Beatles any more, because that is not up to me to decide. You know what I would say? Something along the lines of, "I wish they had ended Beatles when John, George and Ringo quit/died/left" or "I really prefer Beatles with Paul, John, Ringo and George and not the version of the band we have now". Which is what most sensible people say about what happened with GN'R, because, you know, they don't have to perform mental sommersaults to keep the band pure and pristine for their own sake.

Well that is where we are different. My argument pertains to personnel whereas your argument pertains to the legalities of the nomenclature. You rather don't allow yourself to recognise and proclaim a con trick.

[Len Cnut]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well that is where we are different. My argument pertains to personnel whereas your argument pertains to the legalities of the nomenclature. You rather don't allow yourself to recognise and proclaim a con trick.

He's got a point y'know Soulie.  What you are arguing is that, OK, me, Noel Edmonds, Roger Moore and Delia Smith should rightfully be called The Beatles and perform their songs and make new albums under that banner and be included in the canon of Beatles works so long as we have the legal right to from Paul McCartney.  Which we could if we did but would it be The Beatles, can you see how that might perhaps raise objections? 

[SoulMonster]

8 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

It'd be interesting to know how the dynamic of Axl and Slash functioned in GnR.  Because in terms of Mick and Keith, John and Paul, they sort of wrote the songs together and we the kinda necleus of the band in that sense, is the same strictly applicable to Axl and Slash?  if I'm not mistaken the authorship of GnR songs was always kind of a free-for-all and certainly not something anchored around the specific dynamic of Axl and Slash.

Slash and Axl were never solely responsible for the music. It was always a band where everybody could bring in songs and where everybody had an input in the song writing and composing. CD is a great example of that. But of course to most people their contributions sonically, the vocals and the lead guitar, were the most important. Additionally, the partnership between the 5 band members from the Appetite era slowly crumbled and eventually it left Slash and Axl with most decision power, meaning that they two together had the most to say when band business and direction was discussed. They were also by far the two guys with the most media appeal. All of this means that to most people GN'R was based on the two of them. If the UYI lineup hadn't fallen apart, and they had continued to release music, I am sure Axl and Slash would grow to the same renown as Mick and Keith, Tyler and Perry and John and Paul. Alas, that didn't happen when Slash quit the band. By then many fans had taken a side in the conflict between Axl and Slash and this would color their perception on the rest of the history, in particular on whether they would accept GN'R without Slash.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

He's got a point y'know Soulie.  What you are arguing is that, OK, me, Noel Edmonds, Roger Moore and Delia Smith should rightfully be called The Beatles and perform their songs and make new albums under that banner and be included in the canon of Beatles works so long as we have the legal right to from Paul McCartney.  Which we could if we did but would it be The Beatles, can you see how that might perhaps raise objections? 

No. It would be a bunch of bollocks.

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

It essentially amounts to the same thing though, doesn't it? 

No, arguing that the GN'R wikipedia page shouldn't list CD under the discography is not the same thing as saying that you preferred GN'R with the AFD lineup. There is a huge principal difference. The former implies that you think your subjective opinion should influence, well, basically, history and facts, whereas the second just implies that you acknowledge that you don't like something but that is has zero power beyond your own feelings and that it holds no objective value.

[Len Cnut]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No, arguing that the GN'R wikipedia page shouldn't list CD under the discography is not the same thing as saying that you preferred GN'R with the AFD lineup. There is a huge principal difference. The former implies that you think your subjective opinion should influence, well, basically, history and facts, whereas the second just implies that you acknowledge that you don't like something but that is has zero power beyond your own feelings and that it holds no objective value.

Yeah, sorry, I didn't catch the wiki page bit.

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well that is where we are different. My argument pertains to personnel whereas your argument pertains to the legalities of the nomenclature. You rather don't allow yourself to recognise and proclaim a con trick.

Well, I don't think it is a "con trick" to continue with a band despite radical lineup changes  Again, that really says a lot about your emotional investment in lineups and being a fan.

[DieselDaisy]

Soul is very statist and legal, like an obedient automaton. He doesn't allow himself room to call something ''a complete load of bollocks''. 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Yeah, sorry, I didn't catch the wiki page bit.

But that is the crucial thing here. I have zero problems with people saying things like, "to me, Guns N' Roses died in 1994". That's fine. How could I object to what people think? But when people say, "CD is not a record by GN'R" it is more of a universal statement that speaks of an objective truth. That is something I will disagree with, even if I agree with the underlying sentiment.

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Soul is very statist and legal, like an obedient automaton. He doesn't allow himself room to call something ''a complete load of bollocks''. 

Well, you are.

Edited February 16, 2019 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

10 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

He's got a point y'know Soulie.  What you are arguing is that, OK, me, Noel Edmonds, Roger Moore and Delia Smith should rightfully be called The Beatles and perform their songs and make new albums under that banner and be included in the canon of Beatles works so long as we have the legal right to from Paul McCartney.  Which we could if we did but would it be The Beatles, can you see how that might perhaps raise objections? 

And I would be one that would raise objections But I wouldn't object to the resulting music being by the band Beatles (because I couldn't), what I would object to was Paul's decision to hand over the rights of the iconic band name to those guys. 

[Len Cnut]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But that is the crucial thing here. I have zero problems with people saying things like, "to me, Guns N' Roses died in 1994". That's fine. How could I object to what people think? But when people say, "CD is not a record by GN'R" it is more of a universal statement that speaks of an objective truth. That is something I will disagree with.

I think its a fair statement.  Its not REALLY a record by GnR, its just allowed to be called such and is called such, it don't really bother me broadly speaking but...yeah, it is what it is.  The Clashes last album, Cut the Crap, was after Joe Strummer had fired everyone except him and Paul Simonon the bass player.  To this day its sort of not counted as a Clash album, their all encompassing box set was released and the album was not included, though it is technically a Clash album and goes under that banner its kinda...ignored by silent agreement on the part of everyone, including the people who made it.  Its not even mentioned in their official documentary and ignored on 99.9% of all greatest hits or compilations.  Its looked at as something of an abberation. 

But then I guess that just makes it The Clash album that everyone ignored.  Its all pedantry really.  Its certainly on their Wiki page.  I think with different bands its different too I mean, some musicians just have this special relationship and musical synergy which makes them what they are and its that coming together of talents that informs the bands identity and when its not there anymore more often than not things fall apart, as was the case with The Clash.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

I think its a fair statement.  Its not REALLY a record by GnR, its just allowed to be called such and is called such, it don't really bother me broadly speaking but...yeah, it is what it is.  The Clashes last album, Cut the Crap, was after Joe Strummer had fired everyone except him and Paul Simonon the bass player.  To this day its sort of not counted as a Clash album, their all encompassing box set was released and the album was not included, though it is technically a Clash album and goes under that banner its kinda...ignored by silent agreement on the part of everyone, including the people who made it.  Its not even mentioned in their official documentary and ignored on 99.9% of all greatest hits or compilations.  Its looked at as something of an abberation. 

But then I guess that just makes it The Clash album that everyone ignored.  Its all pedantry really.  Its certainly on their Wiki page.  I think with different bands its different too I mean, some musicians just have this special relationship and musical synergy which makes them what they are and its that coming together of talents that informs the bands identity and when its not there anymore more often than not things fall apart, as was the case with The Clash.

The two post-Morrison Doors albums also. Some people are not even aware of their existence.