Poll: What do we as fans and consumers want?

[SoulMonster]

I haven't seen any serious publication, or writer, or author, or lexicon or whatever that doesn't accept that the band Guns N' Roses released the record Chinese Democracy. Sure, usually with the caveat "it isn't the same, though" or some derogatory comment on what has happened to the band and CD This whole "the partnership was dissolved in 1992 so it isn't legally the same band anymore and hence it wasn't really Guns N' Roses that released CD, boo-hoo" seems to be something only some hardcore fans would say, and naturally that is because only hardcore fans feel they have the most to lose from accepting what happened to "their" band. Neutral people, although apt to comment on how different the band has become and how much of a change it has gone through, would have no problems accepting it, just like how they accept that Fleetwood Mac started as a blues band in the 60s and now is a contemporary rock band with a quite different lineup. Things change and most people are fine with that. Guns N' Roses in 2008 surely wasn't the same band as Guns N' Roses in 1987. Hell, Guns N' Roses in 1991 wasn't the same Guns N' Roses as Guns N' Roses in 1987. Nor is Guns N' Roses in 2018 the same Guns N' Roses as in 1991. No band stays the same over decades, and agreeable GN'R has perhaps been among the bands that have gone through the most changes, but it doesn't affect the fact that it has always been Guns N' Roses. Nor the fact that people who spend time fighting this usually does it as a coping mechanism.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said:

You seriously look back at say DJ Ashba and think "...this...'this' is no less Guns N' Roses."? They were playing at bowling alleys because the general public knew it was only Axl.

Whether a band is Guns N' Roses or not is a binary thing, it either is or it isn't. It doesn't come in a continuum where it is "a little GN'R" or "very GN'R". It either is, or it isn't.

The QUALITY of said band can vary, though. And I thought of GN'R with Dj as a worse band than GN'R without Dj. 

[Sydney Fan]

58 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I haven't seen any serious publication, or writer, or author, or lexicon or whatever that doesn't accept that the band Guns N' Roses released the record Chinese Democracy. Sure, usually with the caveat "it isn't the same, though" or some derogatory comment on what has happened to the band and CD This whole "the partnership was dissolved in 1992 so it isn't legally the same band anymore and hence it wahisn't really Guns N' Roses that released CD, boo-hoo" seems to be something only some hardcore fans would say, and naturally that is because only hardcore fans feel they have the most to lose from accepting what happened to "their" band. Neutral people, although apt to comment on how different the band has become and how much of a change it has gone through, would have no problems accepting it, just like how they accept that Fleetwood Mac started as a blues band in the 60s and now is a contemporary rock band with a quite different lineup. Things change and most people are fine with that. Guns N' Roses in 2008 surely wasn't the same band as Guns N' Roses in 1987. Hell, Guns N' Roses in 1991 wasn't the same Guns N' Roses as Guns N' Roses in 1987. Nor is Guns N' Roses in 2018 the same Guns N' Roses as in 1991. No band stays the same over decades, and agreeable GN'R has perhaps been among the bands that have gone through the most changes, but it doesn't affect the fact that it has always been Guns N' Roses. Nor the fact that people who spend time fighting this usually does it as a coping mechanism.

Im not one to bitch whether CD should have the GNR  name or is considered to be GNR . Fans can listen to AFD Illusions and CD back to back and form an opinion whether CD shoukd have been a GNR record. My feelings are this,

"Guns N' Roses in 2008 surely wasn't the same band as Guns N' Roses in 1987. Hell, Guns N' Roses in 1991 wasn't the same Guns N' Roses as Guns N' Roses in 1987. Nor is Guns N' Roses in 2018 the same Guns N' Roses as in 1991"

The above is true and no disagreement from me. But when i listened to UY1 when it first came out after the second song i immediately knew what i was hearing was different to AFD but the general feel was the progression in the musicianship and the songs and you could feel the band had evolved and you could form a connection with what you were hearing. But the songs still had that guns fire and swagger, and i could sense the "core" of the band still had that swagger, although the band lost steven and picked up sorum and dizzy. Each member when i used to read the illusions booklet and used to read who played on what songs so you could feel and sense which member had input and each member was the sum of their parts. When i listen to CD i dont feel this, and i dont feel any progression or evolving mainly because the original band members were gone and also its difficult to know which muscian played on what song. To me it will always feel like an axl solo record because there is no feel or personal connection to the songs. CD was never majorly promoted in Australia and there was not one song radio played from it  .On slashs solo record you could tell by looking at the inlet booklet who played what and i feel there is more feel and connection with slashs 2010 record that CD. That record was majorly promoted and radio couldnt stop playing "ghost" and "by the sword" . Thats my opinion and im certainly not going to put CD down.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Sydney Fan

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Sydney Fan said:

Im not one to bitch whether CD should have rhe GNR or us considered to be GNR . Fans can listen to AFD Illysions and CD back to back and form an opinion whether CD shoukd have been a GNR record. My feelings are this,

"Guns N' Roses in 2008 surely wasn't the same band as Guns N' Roses in 1987. Hell, Guns N' Roses in 1991 wasn't the same Guns N' Roses as Guns N' Roses in 1987. Nor is Guns N' Roses in 2018 the same Guns N' Roses as in 1991"

The above is true and no disagreement from me. But when i listened to UY1 when it first came out i immediately knew what i was hearing was different to AFD but the general feel was the progression in the musicianship and the songs and you could feel the band had evolved. But the songs still had that guns fire and swagger, and i could sense the "core" of the band still had that swagger, although the band lost steven and picked up sorum and dizzy. Each member when i used to read the illusions booklet and used to read who played on what songs so you could feel and sense which member had input and each member was the sum of their parts. When i listen to CD i dont feel this, and i dont feel any progression or evolving mainly because the original band members were gone and also its difficult to know which muscuan played on what song. To me it will always feel like an axl solo record because there is no feel. On slashs solo record you could tell by looking at the inlet booklet who played what and i feel there is more feel and connection with slashs 2010 record that CD. Thats my opinion and im certainly not going to put CD down.

Whether something is something, isn't generally up to your subjective feelings on the matter. You might feel that CD was too different for it to be a GN'R record, but someone else, using other musical metrics, might disagree. And where does that leave us? Surely a band can't both be Guns N' Roses and NOT be Guns N' Roses at the same time. So this isn't left to listeners to decide. Just like I can't just decide that Manchester United isn't Manchester United anymore. Or that Fleetwood Mac isn't Fleetwood Mac anymore. It simply isn't up to me, or up to you. We have to use objective criteria, not subjective feelings.

And this issue is quickly resolved if we just accept that it is a band that changes over time. It is okay to say, "I liked GN'R around them time of Appetite," or "I hate GN'R before CD." It perfectly acknowledges the fact that it is a band that has gone through drastic changes. But saying, "because I personally think CD is too different from the band's other output, that band can't have been Guns N' Roses," is a bit out there, you know? We don't typically grant the right to determine the validity of something's existence to second parties, and I don't see why we should do it with bands either. That right belongs solely to the band. And then we will just have to cope with how that affects us as fans of said band.

[Sydney Fan]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Whether something is something, isn't generally up to your subjective feelings on the matter. You might feel that CD was too different for it to be a GN'R record, but someone else, using other musical metrics, might disagree. And where does that leave us? Surely a band can't both be Guns N' Roses and NOT be Guns N' Roses at the same time. So this isn't left to listeners to decide. Just like I can't just decide that Manchester United isn't Manchester United anymore. Or that Fleetwood Mac isn't Fleetwood Mac anymore. It simply isn't up to me, or up to you. We have to use objective criteria, not subjective feelings.

And this issue is quickly resolved if we just accept that it is a band that changes over time. It is okay to say, "I liked GN'R around them time of Appetite," or "I hate GN'R before CD." It perfectly acknowledges the fact that it is a band that has gone through drastic changes. But saying, "because I personally think CD is too different from the band's other output, that band can't have been Guns N' Roses," is a bit out there, you know? We don't typically grant the right to determine the validity of something's existence to second parties, and I don't see why we should do it with bands either. That right belongs solely to the band. And then we will just have to cope with how that affects us as fans of said band.

All fans can agree and disagree.Its abit like KISS fans saying KISS 80s era wasnt KISS, But it does piss me off when posters here say CD was the natural progression of illusions or it was the album axl would have made if all the illusions members were still in the band. 

Edited February 13, 2019 by Sydney Fan

[EvanG]

I can't believe how often SoulMonster has been having this same discussion on here... but he's right, though. For me personally CD doesn't feel like a GnR record either but that doesn't change the fact that that's what it is, whether I like it or not. I like CD but it feels more like an Axl solo record or a different band entirely, but it's still a Guns N' Roses record.

Edited February 13, 2019 by EvanG

[Len Cnut]

32 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

@SoulMonster so if Paul and Ringo got together under The Beatles name with a few session musicians you would accept them as The Beatles? 

He wouldn't have a choice.  And y'know, John Paul and George got together and done a tour with Jimmy Nichols whilst Ringo was having his tonsils out...was that The Beatles? 

[EvanG]

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Shut up, Evan! 

It's ok, you might be wrong about this one, but you're still the best looking one in the bunch!

[soon]

Paul handled some drums in studio. As did Purdie. Paul played acoustic on Black Bird.  

[EvanG]

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

You've seen me? 

[pbj_jam]

It was Axl's band since day 1, sadly has been true for a long time and Axl is done. Unless Accadacca calls.

 

Enjoy more shit on the neverending tour. In reply to OT, im enjoying Rock The Rock quite a bit these days.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

@SoulMonster so if Paul and Ringo got together under The Beatles name with a few session musicians you would accept them as The Beatles? 

Yes. It would be a ridiculous version of that band, yes, and quite surreal if it was to happen. But it is not up to me to say it isn't Beatles. Or you. That right lies with the band members solely. I trust they wouldn't do such an absurd thing because they too would find it a violation of our expectations of what Beatles was and that band's place in on our collective history.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Sydney Fan said:

All fans can agree and disagree.Its abit like KISS fans saying KISS 80s era wasnt KISS, But it does piss me off when posters here say CD was the natural progression of illusions or it was the album axl would have made if all the illusions members were still in the band. 

But CD was a natural progression of illusions.

Just kidding (no, not really). The important question to me is, why does it matter to you what other people feel on this issue? If some people see some fundamental similarities between UYI and CD, that you don't see, what does it matter? Does it threaten you in any way? Your perceptions of what GN'R was supposed to be? I simply don't get why anyone would get angry over something like that nor do I understand why one would let that anger influence one's idea of what GN'R is or isn't.

53 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I can't believe how often SoulMonster has been having this same discussion on here... but he's right, though. For me personally CD doesn't feel like a GnR record either but that doesn't change the fact that that's what it is, whether I like it or not. I like CD but it feels more like an Axl solo record or a different band entirely, but it's still a Guns N' Roses record.

I can't believe it either!! And you are absolutely right. I should learn from you and try to be more concise in my posts

[Trin9498]

They’re all pushing 60. GNR has a terrible track record when it comes to releasing music. There won’t be a new album of original material. They’re too old. They’re too rich. No incentive......

[EvanG]

17 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I can't believe it either!! And you are absolutely right. I should learn from you and try to be more concise in my posts

No that's fine. I seem to agree with you 9 out of 10 times on here, and I admire your perseverance and patience for not refraining from responding and repeatedly having to explain the facts even when people refuse to see it... I'm not patient like that.

[SoulMonster]

7 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

It would be a ridiculous version of the band because it would be missing members. Like GNR. So I would simply say that's part of the band there and part of it's missing. But you say I'm not allowed to say that. I have to decide it's Guns N' Roses or it's not. But I'm not allowed to say it's not Guns N' Roses because I have to say that it is because...Why? Axl says so? Team Brazil says so? lol. But wait Slash and Duff who are founding members have now returned and they say it's GNR too, so I must be wrong. Actually, no, that bolsters my argument of the more the merrier. The more proper members mean more authenticity and legitimacy. Ergo, I'm right fuck you.

To me it's like saying I have to respect Paul's opinion when he said he was the best drummer in The Beatles. No, I don't actually. He was a prick for saying that and also wrong.

You're arguing that half measures=full measures and that I can't disagree just because.

You are allowed to say whatever you want 

Hell, you are allowed to say it isn't Apple anymore after Jobs died, you are allowed to say it isn't USA anymore with Trump in charge, you are allowed to say it isn't Fleetwood Mac after they moved to California, you are allowed to say it isn't Manchester United anymore, and you are allowed to say it isn't Guns N' Roses.

And you are allowed to say it is only a little bit Guns N' Roses and divide it up as you like. You can say it is only 2/5 Guns N' Roses or 20 % or 0.01 % or whatever.

But just keep in mind this is only a mental exercise, the power to actually define what is Guns N' Roses or not doesn't lie with you, or anyone else besides the band members (and/or legal owners depending upon whatever agreements regulate this). 

And this has nothing to do with agreeing with any sentiments on who was the best drummer in the Beatles. That is subjective. What something is called isn't. 

Edited February 13, 2019 by SoulMonster

[ezosk]

GNR cheese and Gnair merch.

[TheSeeker]

Mercy kill the band now before it gets even more embarrassing

[RussTCB]

41 minutes ago, ezosk said:

GNR cheese and Gnair merch.

I don't think they have anything to do with the cheese thing. However, GNRair is the most cringe worthy thing to happen to the band since DJ Ashba (tm). 

[Len Cnut]

11 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

What even is GNRair?

Axls private jet?  They should call it ginger 'air...get it, ginger 'air?  Oh, i slay me!

Edited February 13, 2019 by Len Cnut

[RussTCB]

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

What even is GNRair?

As far as I can tell, it was a ridiculously awful merch line and that's about it. 

 

https://store.flygnair.com

[SoulMonster]

19 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

I don't think they have anything to do with the cheese thing. However, GNRair is the most cringe worthy thing to happen to the band since DJ Ashba (tm). 

I am just confused by that GNRair thing. Were they in the process of rolling out something and then they got so much flak they just stopped it? I never got my head around it.

But, but, but...why??

[Lio]

17 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

As far as I can tell, it was a ridiculously awful merch line and that's about it. 

 

https://store.flygnair.com

I'm still intrigued by what this was meant to be. All that merch is still preorder or even 'coming soon'. They must've have had something different planned, surely? I think this is one of those (many) ideas that never came to be. I can't believe they would paint a plane like that and market the whole thing just to be ridiculous merch that is still in preorder nearly a year after the launch. Maybe some day we will know.

[RussTCB]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

I am just confused by that GNRair thing. Were they in the process of rolling out something and then they got so much flak they just stopped it? I never got my head around it.

That's my best guess too. They had a thing on the site saying you could fly with the band, but then nothing ever came of it as far as I can tell. 

[Tyler Drama]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I am just confused by that GNRair thing. Were they in the process of rolling out something and then they got so much flak they just stopped it?

That never stopped them before...