Jump to content
Towelie

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

Recommended Posts

Any new album (I'm talking truly new not old leftover CD stuff) would be as close to a follow up as we'd ever get.  CD is an Axl Rose solo deal under the GnR banner because of his stubbornness and cold war with Slash at the time.  That and he needed the name to sell, however I think he woulda been happier and done more going full on solo ala Plant or even like what Slash and Duff have done. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As far as different lineups go, there's objective legitimacy and subjective legitimacy.

There are/were other bands that underwent many lineup changes and continued with only one original member. Off the top of my head: The Smashing Pumpkins, The Fall, PiL, The Sisters of Mercy...

All the lineups of those bands, GnR included, are objectively legitimate, as it was the remaining member's legal right to continue under the band's name.

The subjective legitimacy depends on the perception of the fans and of the public in general, i.e. whether a band is perceived as a group or as the vehicle of one or two of its members. In the case of GnR, the majority of the fans and of the general public saw it as either a group or as Axl and Slash, so the NuGnR lineups were illegitimate to their eyes; for a smaller portion of the fans, on the other hand, Axl was the driving force, so the NuGnR lineups were as legitimate as the classic lineups. The majority (or a large portion) of the fans of the other bands mentioned didn't mind. Also, other fans consider the musical direction a determining factor for the legitimacy and other fans don't. Then there are cases where even the absence of one original member makes the band illegitimate to the eyes of the fans, e.g. The Doors. So it's basically a question of the perception of the majority.

To me NuGnR (with all its lineups) was a different band, but I find it pointless to debate whether it was "real" GnR or not, as it was objectively legitimate and the rest - although what the majority thinks matters and is not irrelevant - is subjective.

Edited by Blackstar
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Towelie said:

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?

 

This is gonna end well :lol:

Edit- 

For the record, Chinese Democracy is my favorite Guns N' Roses album, so yes, I'd consider an album released by the current lineup to be "a real GN'R album"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it depends on what ends up on the album. If it's just a re-recorded CDII, or if it even has guitar leads from Ashba, Finck, Ron, Bucket etc on it, then surely not.

If it's new music by this line up with some old and new of Axl's vocals snd ideas then I would consider it GNR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

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. 

Great post. Thanks! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours 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.

Everything you said makes perfect sense but that's the beauty about art, you just never know.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is that it would be legally legitimately GNR but in my mind it would be kinda like GNR but not.  Like when you order a Pepsi and you get PepsiMax, it's not what you want, somethings not quite right, i mean it's Pepsi ...but it's not really Pepsi.

I know what I mean but I dunno if you lot get what I'm trying to say :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, lame ass security said:

Everything you said makes perfect sense but that's the beauty about art, you just never know.  

Oh true, any group of musicians can click with another but the overall point is musical synergy don’t grow on trees or there’d be a lot more great musicians out there, its as much to do with the time too and where each musician is at in their playing and how that clicks with the other.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the big 3 are on it then that's good enough for me. Matt Steven Izzy would be added bonus.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours 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.

 

If it still sounded like gnr I would consider it gnr.

same way I still consider megadeth as megadeth and 2/4 are original members.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Oh true, any group of musicians can click with another but the overall point is musical synergy don’t grow on trees or there’d be a lot more great musicians out there, its as much to do with the time too and where each musician is at in their playing and how that clicks with the other.

The synergy thing is so important, can you imagine the Beatles without any specific member?  Would they have been the same if they kept Pete Best instead of Ringo?  I don't think so.  It's fascinating to consider those type of things 

Edited by lame ass security

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, MaskingApathy said:

If the big 3 are on it then that's good enough for me. Matt Steven Izzy would be added bonus.

Do you really think Duff is more deserving of being considered one of the "big three" over a primary songwriter like Izzy?

Edited by Towelie
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Towelie said:

Do you really think Duff is more deserving of being considered one of the "big three" over a primary songwriter like Izzy?

I dont think so. But Duff became one of the "big three" for because he was one of the three original members that were there at their popularity peak. People recognizes Duff as a GNR member, while most used to think Gilby was Izzy. lol

Its just about popularity and not really their importance to the band or the hardcores. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

An Axl/Slash/Duff album in 95-96 would have unquestionably been considered a Guns effort by the vast majority of the public (just as TSI?, and “SFTD” were for that matter). Don’t see why it would be any different today...

Incidentally, I view Chinese as a Guns album in the same way Halloween III is part of the Halloween franchise (guess that makes Slash Michael Myers). An alternate universe take on a familiar theme. It’s like on their way to the their next album Axl/Guns took a 15 year detour to Bucketheadland...

Edited by AXL_N_DIZZY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

   I'd give it 2/5 or 6/10. But this is an entirely separate discussion from legitimacy. 

I've been running your maths through my super computer but I just can't seem to work it out.

Perhaps if you can show me your calculations I might be able to run a new algorithm on it.

The best I can come up with so far is that you meant to say that you give CD a perfect score of 5/7.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who has been a fan of this band since October 1987, I'm definitely a GNR purist. I have always thought and will think that CD should have been an Axl Rose solo project. I would have still supported Axl no matter what.

TIL was  the only song that was worked on by classic GNR, and maybe even the riff of CD. The songs really didn't have that hook of a typical GNR song or album. It was a good album, but not a great one. 

I think when the guys release the new album, it'll be a proper followup to the UYI albums. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a legitimate G N' R album. 

And who's to say that Izzy wouldn't be included in writing at least some of the songs?  Maybe even have Adler and/or Sorum perform on a few tracks.  One thing is for sure, you never know what will come next with this band. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think it’s pretty simple. 

If everyone (I honestly don’t know a single person that doesn’t consider it Gn’R) thinks that The Spaghetti Incident, being a cover album with only 3/5 of the AFD lineup, is considered a Guns N’ Roses album, then I don’t see why a new album by the NITL lineup (even being old songs written by former Gn’R members) couldn’t be considered a Guns N’ Roses album.

Now, the CD era itself is a completely different beast. I personally consider it Gn’R, but I get why some people don’t. 

Edited by GNRfanMILO
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Duff is bit underrated, no Duff =no EASY.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as Axl is singing  on the album it's GNR to me. Please don't let Duff  have a song!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/14/2019 at 6:13 PM, Towelie said:

Do you really think Duff is more deserving of being considered one of the "big three" over a primary songwriter like Izzy?

From a public perception POV? Absolutely. Duff was there for the massive UYI vids, supporting World Tour, VRs success, and now again for NITL. Toss in the columns, successful books, model wife, musician daughter, connection to the Seattle scene, etc., and his public profile is much larger than Izzy’s (who is more of a “loner hero” to diehards/critics- seemingly by choice)...

Another way of looking at it is was it a bigger deal to the general public/media when Izzy played with Chinese-era Guns or Duff? I would certainly say the latter (Duff)...

Edited by AXL_N_DIZZY
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gnfnrs1972 said:

As long as Axl is singing  on the album it's GNR to me. Please don't let Duff  have a song!

thats kind of where i stand. some Axl vocals on some kick ass songs are what i want. i'm not to fussed who is playing the instruments. 

that skinny chic with blue hair adds nothing keyboard wise to the band, i don't even think its switched on but her singing voice sounds ok. 

her and Axl doing a duet would be good and wouldn't be as gay as Ax and Duff singing a romantic song together. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×