Question for the 87-93 purists... Would you consider a new album by the current lineup as a legitimate follow up to UYI?

[Towelie]

It's all their in the title, really.

I used to be one of those fans who genuinely considered Chinese Democracy a GNR record, but something about watching Axl trying to push these songs as GNR ad nauseam for the last 20 years, to diminishing results in terms of the quality of performances etc, has left a bitter taste in my mouth. Contrast that with Slash, who routinely releases good quality shit and sounds a hell of a lot more like 87-93 GNR with both VR and SMKC than Chinese Democracy ever did, I have a hard time agreeing with my former stance on CD being a legitimate Guns album.

So, whilst I have slowly come around to a more purist POV with Guns, I still think the fans who insist that even UYI isn't truly GNR (because of the lack of Steven Adler) are insane!

So my question to the purists, would you consider an Axl/Slash/Duff and friends album a legitimate follow up after the fraudulent GNR album that was Chinese Democracy?

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by Towelie

[DieselDaisy]

Yes, as it isn't Guns N' Roses without Slash. It is that simply. Ideally you'd have Duff, Izzy and Adler there of course but a base quorum would be: Rose and Slash. 

[BadApples87]

Ideally, any new material would include Axl, Slash, Izzy, Duff, along with either Matt or Steven.  But, as long as the current Big 3 are part of it then it would be a legit GNR record.  

[Len Cnut]

Bass, lead guitar and vocals, yeah, that'll do I suppose.  Ideally I'd like to have ol' Iz' and the poodle in there but you can't be fuckin' extreme about these things.  And lets face it the poodle weren't around for long and Iz' weren't around for much longer than long so, yeah, that'll do I suppose.  Quite frankly though I'm not arsed, too little too late, they've had their day and they weren't arsed then so what good is it now, there's a time for everything and their times done, they can no more come back and pick up where they left of than The Stone Roses could or The New York Dolls could or The Smiths could or any number of 'oh God if only they could get back together' bands could.  They don't play the same, they don't sound the same, they ain't the same and neither are the audience.  Its like a boxer or a football player or a film director or, y'know, whatever, you have your time and when its your time you should take proper advantage of it and fuckin' smash it and take it all the way and compromise amongst yourself to hold that thing together.  Musical chemistry is a rare and wonderful thing, a precious thing, perhaps the most precious thing musicians can ever come across in a career, you should do everything you can to keep it together because if you fuck with it its never the same again, happened to GnR, happened to The Clash, happens to em all.  Quite frankly Guns barely cared when they were about and together and functioning. 

Get together, play gigs by all means but putting music out as a bunch of old gits when your last testament is from like, 30 years back in your prime?  Nah, fuck that, setting yourself up for a tumble there.

[Towelie]

24 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Yes, as it isn't Guns N' Roses without Slash. It is that simply. Ideally you'd have Duff, Izzy and Adler there of course but a base quorum would be: Rose and Slash. 

So if GNR had continued with only Axl and Slash throughout the 00s, you would consider it legitimate? Not saying you're right or wrong, I just find it interesting what constitutes real GNR and how many of the original components you need to keep the integrity and legitimacy intact.

 

[WAR41]

I do consider CD a GNR album for the simple fact that at least one song (This I Love) was apparently being worked on by the UYI era band in the early-mid 90's before it all crumbled.  So while they weren't officially playing on the song on CD its a continuation of that time period.  Were other songs worked on by the guys other than TIL I am not sure but I would guess some here know that answer.  

That being said no I don't think that a new album is a continuation of UYI.  These guys are all in a totally different headspace than they were back then.  I mean we're talking 28-30 years ago they were writing/recording UYI. That's a lot of years and a lot of drugs ago. 

 

[Len Cnut]

11 minutes ago, Towelie said:

So if GNR had continued with only Axl and Slash throughout the 00s, you would consider it legitimate? Not saying you're right or wrong, I just find it interesting what constitutes real GNR and how many of the original components you need to keep the integrity and legitimacy intact.

 

I suppose there's a sort of logic there, the most prominent and identifiable aspects of the racket sort of by definition define the sound, don't they?  But fuck that, gotta have Iz' and the ol' Steve Davis waistcoat, thats a must!

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Towelie said:

So if GNR had continued with only Axl and Slash throughout the 00s, you would consider it legitimate? Not saying you're right or wrong, I just find it interesting what constitutes real GNR and how many of the original components you need to keep the integrity and legitimacy intact.

 

It would have been flawed and not as good: people would always say ''it was better during the Appetite era''. But it would be legitimate enough. Rose and Slash are the big cartoonesque icons. 

[Towelie]

11 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Bass, lead guitar and vocals, yeah, that'll do I suppose.  Ideally I'd like to have ol' Iz' and the poodle in there but you can't be fuckin' extreme about these things.  And lets face it the poodle weren't around for long and Iz' weren't around for much longer than long so, yeah, that'll do I suppose.  Quite frankly though I'm not arsed, too little too late, they've had their day and they weren't arsed then so what good is it now, there's a time for everything and their times done, they can no more come back and pick up where they left of than The Stone Roses could or The New York Dolls could or The Smiths could or any number of 'oh God if only they could get back together' bands could.  They don't play the same, they don't sound the same, they ain't the same and neither are the audience.  Its like a boxer or a football player or a film director or, y'know, whatever, you have your time and when its your time you should take proper advantage of it and fuckin' smash it and take it all the way and compromise amongst yourself to hold that thing together.  Musical chemistry is a rare and wonderful thing, a precious thing, perhaps the most precious thing musicians can ever come across in a career, you should do everything you can to keep it together because if you fuck with it its never the same again, happened to GnR, happened to The Clash, happens to em all.  Quite frankly Guns barely cared when they were about and together and functioning. 

Get together, play gigs by all means but putting music out as a bunch of old gits when your last testament is from like, 30 years back in your prime?  Nah, fuck that, setting yourself up for a tumble there.

Yeah, it's kind of hard to believe that anything they come up with in 2019 could ever compete against AFD or UYI. And that ain't nostalgia talking, those records are just in another stratosphere when compared to anything any of them have done since. 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Towelie said:

 I just find it interesting what constitutes real GNR and how many of the original components you need to keep the integrity and legitimacy intact.

It really comes down to what lineup or band members the fan really, really, really likes - and voila! that becomes the criteria for whatever that fan considers to be "legitimate". You don't like CD? Then it wasn't legitimate. You don't like Tracii? Then that wasn't legitimate. You really, really, really like Axl, then all he does is legitimately GN'R. It is just purely subjective preferences disguised as something deeper.

[Towelie]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It really comes down to what lineup or band members the fan really, really, really likes - and voila! that becomes the criteria for whatever that fan considers to be "legitimate". You don't like CD? Then it wasn't legitimate. You don't like Tracii? Then that wasn't legitimate. You really, really, really like Axl, then all he does is legitimately GN'R. It is just purely subjective preferences disguised as something deeper.

Not sure that's true. I really like CD, but I have a hard time accepting it as legitimate. It just doesn't sound like Guns. SMKC sounds more like GNR than CD.

[DieselDaisy]

Axl and Slash may have put some stinking albums out after Illusion but they wouldn't be illegitimate. Illegitimacy is not a synonym for a shite album.  

12 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It really comes down to what lineup or band members the fan really, really, really likes - and voila! that becomes the criteria for whatever that fan considers to be "legitimate". You don't like CD? Then it wasn't legitimate. You don't like Tracii? Then that wasn't legitimate. You really, really, really like Axl, then all he does is legitimately GN'R. It is just purely subjective preferences disguised as something deeper.

Rubbish. I didn't think Chinese was the worst album in the world - it has its moments, most of them involving Buckethead. I'd give it 2/5 or 6/10. But this is an entirely separate discussion from legitimacy. 

[SoulMonster]

15 minutes ago, Towelie said:

Not sure that's true. I really like CD, but I have a hard time accepting it as legitimate. It just doesn't sound like Guns. SMKC sounds more like GNR than CD.

Again, purely subjective. Both the idea that it doesn't sound like GN'R and the idea that it must sound in any specific way.

[EvanG]

As long as there are three original members then it will do for me. If it would have been only Slash and Axl it wouldn't feel like GnR either.

[KURT19]

It depends on the writing credits...

 

[Italian girl]

Yes

[soon]

Im not a classic period purist. But I'll say that Fortus can do a rather authentic Izzy when he wants too. I think if he would really commit to serving the Izzy sound that he could help the album feel authentic. No way Frank is on drums no matter what the liner notes say. Id bet that Mels backing vocals are gonna be well used and I think really help the album. Classic enough with Shannon Hoon serving a similar role on UYI.

As for album quality, the worst album ever made is also one of the best albums ever made, The Shaggs Philosophy of the World. So.... tricky to say

 

[zombux]

what "new album"? am I missing something?

what "current lineup"? the nostalgia cabaret where mainly Slash and Duff are covering their former selves (while doing mostly a horrible job at it), while their singer can't sing anymore, never gets anything done and instead prefers threatening and suing everyone around?

meh... 

the question is legitimate though, because there are huge differences between every single GNR album - Suicide vs AFD vs UYI vs ChiDem vs whateverwillgetout. so it's kinda hard to tell where the "real GNR" started and possibly "ended". in the end it all depends on creative input included in the material and its quality - and in this case I have very serious doubts it could be any better than some forgettable generic mediocre stadium rock - altough I'm confident that it would sell billions and profits would go skyhigh, no matter what stuff is actually there.

[Len Cnut]

Quote

It really comes down to what lineup or band members the fan really, really, really likes - and voila!

I don't think thats how everyone approaches it.  The band that the world at large came to know as GnR is Axl, Slash, Iz', Steven and Duff.  THATS the band, so thats Tracii and Ole Solskjaer and all those other wankers that no one except nerds have heard of off up the pictures for a start.  After that they made line up adjustments when individuals fucked off to keep from breaking up, thats fair enough.  But then when the whole thing falls apart and there's no one left (when there's one person left out of an entire band thats the same as no ones left because a band is a band of people, a group of people, if all but one has fucked off there is by definition no band left, one person can band together with himself) thats when a bands done.  The definitive works of GnR by anyones fuckin' reckoning, even a retards, is Appetite, Lies and Illusions, they aren't this world famous fuckin' band based on Chi Dem, thats just mental illness again.  Ergo, the cunts who made those albums are the best call for who the band is because the adjustments made to those line ups were made when one of a large collective left to keep the unit working, thats sort of functional necessity, I can hang with that.  This is all for the perspective of a listener of music however, legally speaking the band is whoever the cunt that owns the rights to the name says is the band, which is fair enough, in a court of law.  But I ain't a solicitor, I'm just a dickhead who buys CDs (or used to, buys albums, you know what I mean) and goes to gigs, I don't give a fuck for legal entities and likeness rights, appreciation of music is an entertainment thing, legal entities and likeness rights only matter to the cunts whoose bank account benefits from all that bollocks, they're nothing to do with fans or the public at large, who operate more on the basis of apparent realities as opposed to backroom manuevrings. 

Now the Illusions line up ain't my favourite, they ain't the one I really really really like...but I accept them as Guns n Roses because there being there is to do with the functional necessity of a particular time, to keep that band together and going.  Once that band split and were done they had split and were done.  I actually quite like NuGuns, I thought the original collective at least, the ones who started going out and playing, Axl, Bucket, Brain, Fortus Finck and Tommy were a pretty crazy little collective.  And I'll call em Guns n Roses or NuGuns for ease of reference if the owner of the rights wants me to...but they are no more Guns n Roses than Wings were The fuckin' Beatles because they had Paul McCartney in em. 

[moreblack]

I think if Axl/Slash/Duff work openly and honestly and put in their best together, whatever comes out will be well received. I'm curious what Melissa/4tus/Frank/Dizzy can add to the mix as well.

[default_]

Its not the ideal line up but with Duff and Slash there, im in. If Frank gets fired before it happens Ill be even happier.

[default_]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

but they are no more Guns n Roses than Wings were The fuckin' Beatles because they had Paul McCartney in em. 

Wheres the option to give more than a like per post? I could give a thousand to this line. 

[WAR41]

Somewhat on topic, during the late 90's my friends and I used to debate what constituted 'GNR'.  This was when rumors were swirling about who Axl had in the band after Duff left and Matt was fired.  If I recall, my friends mostly said it wasn't GNR without Axl and Slash together.  My stance at that time was that as long as Axl had one other AFD member with him I'd consider it GNR.  Even if it was Axl and Steven .  Conversely even if it was the Appetite 5 minus Axl we wouldn't consider it GNR.  Axl was the key member.  

[DieselDaisy]

Slash, Duff and Izzy could have put out a terrific GN'R album if they relied more on Izzy's ideas

[AncientEvil80]

I am a purist. And no, without AFD5 it's not a legitimate GNR release. As simple as that.

I love UYI, and still consider it "legitimate" because most of it was composed while all the guys were together. So even though Sorum does a despicable job, ruining the original feel of such compositions, you can still smell and feel the original vibe oozing through and that was enough for me, coupled with the fact that some of the songs were absolute masterpieces.