Bobbo

As ridiculous as it is, the new band could put out 10 albums and sell 200 million copies with 25 number one hits and a group of people would still bash Axl, call it a coverband filled with hired hands, say the success is based on Slash's involvement with the band in the old days, etc, etc, axl is a prick, etc, etc, etc

Well they haven't put out 10 albums and had 25 number one hits.

It is an indisputable fact that the "old" lineup's songs and success is what made GNR what it is today, they do not stand on their own yet. And I am a huge supporter of CD and the new lineup, but this is just a fact.

As of right now Guns N' Roses is a culmination of past and present members' work, and based on setlists and other factors they have not yet "stood on their own". Will they be able to do so? I hope so, this new lineup has a lot of potential... but again when the majority of the songs are old material and you have only released 1 album since 1993 it is near impossible for the new lineup's potential to become reality

The potential of this lineup has not matched up with what ends up actually happening...

+1

Respectfully disagree groghan. The reason people are still bashing the band is because NONE of that happened. Not even remotely.

I don't agree with axl continuing with the name. And ill be the the first to admit, id prefer a reunion. A legit reunion, where it wasn't just for the money and such. But I do accept things as they are, and id happily take nu guns taking off.

My problem is that they're still a band that relys too heavily on the past to remain relevant. The point of this thread is just to gather opinions as to whether eventually, if the band steps up their game on a musical basis, the band can stand on their own two feet and be remembered as their own era and not just a nostalgia act for the previous. I realize that sounds harsh, but sadly that's just what it is in present time.

What I mean by this is, do you think nu guns will ever be remembered as a band that "made" it and eventually have their own material that fans (both casual and hardcore) hold near and dear? I don't think chinese was really the album that cemented their status in stone. Do you think the heavy reliance on the classic material for most of their act will stop? Do you think people will ever seperate the eras of the band, and appreciate the nu band for their OWN material?

I know this sounds cynical, but I'm honestly curious. Do you think the day will ever come that the band will be seen more to the general public than just a cover band?

LOL. Who said they can't play the classics? It's the HUGE reliance on the classics that's the problem. 15 years as their own band, and they only play 5 of their own songs, and 20 covers live at a show? Kinda pathetic...

They've played more classic songs yes. They are Guns N' Roses after all, it would be disapointing for the audience to not include these songs.

It's not quite as bad as you make it out to be though. I did the calculation, and they've played new songs 968 times, and classic songs 2587 times. That's new songs for 37.5% of the show.

That was a nerd move... :krider:

Bobo.....what say you? Those numbers do not quite add up to your outrageous exaggerated numbers.

Appetite is one the biggest selling rock albums of all time. Why wouldn't they play a lot of it live?

And both shows I went to they played 5-6 new songs, which is about the industry standard for concerts.

The same thing I've been saying really.They've been a nu band since 1998, really. They play their nu songs for a small portion of a show. How was I "exaggerating"? This bands been a band longer than classic band was. When you rely on the classics to the point where they pretty much make up your whole show, that's purely a nostalgia act. What say you?

It's BoBBo by the way.

Since this thread is about Metallica... Do you consider them a nostalgia act as well?

I mean, take the World Magnetic Tour. Six of the 25 most played songs on that tour was from Death Magnetic. I believe that's the norm for most bands touring on a new album.

For the record I myself consider Metallica a relevant band today.

Apples and oranges and you know it. Metallica releases music, and tours every few years. Three of the four members have played on every single album (yeah, I know about mustaine, but he never actually played on an album so I don't count em), and at least robbie boy has contributed to an album. Half of nu gnr is a cover band. Bumble, fortus, and frank BARELY contributed anything to chinese except bits and pieces of re-recording shit, and ashba hasn't contributed squat yet. AS OF NOW, and maybe somewhere down the road, it can change, they're just a cover band. How do you justify being a band for 14 years, much longer than the classic band was together, and only having a majority of anothers bands covers for your setlist? Its just laughable, I'm sorry.

Has metallica played the exact same setlist from 2001? How many albums have metallica released since 1993? How many original (and by "original", I mean members that have played on every album) members are currently in the band? How many times have they toured since 1993?

LOL. Who said they can't play the classics? It's the HUGE reliance on the classics that's the problem. 15 years as their own band, and they only play 5 of their own songs, and 20 covers live at a show? Kinda pathetic...

They've played more classic songs yes. They are Guns N' Roses after all, it would be disapointing for the audience to not include these songs.

It's not quite as bad as you make it out to be though. I did the calculation, and they've played new songs 968 times, and classic songs 2587 times. That's new songs for 37.5% of the show.

That was a nerd move... :krider:

Bobo.....what say you? Those numbers do not quite add up to your outrageous exaggerated numbers.

Appetite is one the biggest selling rock albums of all time. Why wouldn't they play a lot of it live?

And both shows I went to they played 5-6 new songs, which is about the industry standard for concerts.

The same thing I've been saying really.They've been a nu band since 1998, really. They play their nu songs for a small portion of a show. How was I "exaggerating"? This bands been a band longer than classic band was. When you rely on the classics to the point where they pretty much make up your whole show, that's purely a nostalgia act. What say you?

It's BoBBo by the way.

LOL. Who said they can't play the classics? It's the HUGE reliance on the classics that's the problem. 15 years as their own band, and they only play 5 of their own songs, and 20 covers live at a show? Kinda pathetic...

Still means probably no cd II this year. Unless they just add ashbas parts to already recorded material, which I think would be a mistake. Best option is to take the current lineup, and rerecord the material from scratch. Not sure why its this complicated.

Before I start this thread, I just want to make it crystal fucking clear. I'm not creating this thread with the intention to cupcake. I'm neither pro Axl or pro Slash. I just see things for what they are.

Now. The main argument that pro axl fans use about nu guns is that chinese democracy sold five million copies worldwide, despite promotion. BUT is that a very valid argument? See despite the direct promotion from axl himself...this album had 15 years worth of hype...15 years of media coverage...and when the time came for the album to be released...everybody that even gave half a shit about this band knew when chinese democracy was coming out. I remember even seeing it on chelsea lately at the time with my ex. So I have to believe many around the globe purcharsed this record...just because the gnr album that was almost believed to be myth for 15 years was FINALLY being released.

Now...if, or when chinese II gets released, in my opinion, I think that will be the album that will show if nu guns has potential as a real band. It doesn't have nearly the amount of hype as the first nu release, so if it sells even half as well, and gets some good critical reception...maybe...just maybe...we might really have something here. To me cd II could very well be the test that shows what nu guns are really made of. What do you all think? And please, despite what your paranoid delussions might tell you, I'M NOT TRYING TO cupcake. Discuss in a MATURE MANNER FOR A CHANGE.