Sunset Gardner

Just now, bucketfoot said:

bucket and Sunset

genius.  love it.  

Just now, bucketfoot said:

It took a while but we got there in the end.

me and you pal… maybe there's a buddy cop movie in our future… two detectives undercover who always argue about Chinese Democracy.  

Just now, bucketfoot said:

Oh yeah, and I do agree there are also bands who have members who are so integral, that they can't be replaced, The Beatles could never reform after Lennon died being the obvious example, they are rare though. As much as I love Brian, he's certainly not irreplaceable (that's harsh I know)

it's not harsh, Brian was a Steven and they became worthless in the studio and to the process of creating new music.  i wish more could have and would have been done to save both but addicts are tough… especially when everyone's young and doesn't know how to communicate.  

Just now, bucketfoot said:

It is. I mean, I absolutely love Brian Jones, love him, The Stones were his band, basically, and yet all my favourite albums by them are with Mick Taylor.

it is sad how brian lost his band and his life.  tragic.  one has to wonder what he could've done with the band or solo or in a new band.  

but hands down, the mick taylor years is some of the greatest music ever made.  i knew i liked you… 

Just now, AxlsFavoriteRose said:

oh i don't know...there are exceptions. imagine if you could get the original line up of Led Zeppelin. or The Beatles. or The Who. or THe Doors

yeah, i totally agree… so much integrity in these bands.  except The Who… oh i kid The Who.   i buy any lineup change that backs itself up with solid work that stands on its own against anything that came before it.  but the bands you mention above (except for the who)… you just CAN'T imagine anyone not there, they are all bands that did not carry on out of respect for the lost members they could not be complete without.  

Just now, bucketfoot said:

Yeah, both of those are perfect examples. The Stones (who are my favourite band), as you say, changed guitarists absolutely brilliantly.

it's almost scary how the stones got it all so right.  absolutely brilliant body of work over such an impressive amount of time.  and i love "blue and lonesome"... such a great little blues record.  

Just now, bucketfoot said:

Most bands change line ups at one time or another. It's pretty rare that a band remains with the original line up when you think about it? Means fuck all.

the best example, for me, of a band that changed things up right was the stones.  brian jones into mick taylor into ron wood.  so seamless.  each guitarist represents a very distinct period for the band.   the Eagles were also remarkably able to move people in and out around henley/frey.  

Just now, MaskingApathy said:

What kind of venues are they looking to do these warm shows at? Small clubs like the troubadour show or something bigger?

the bird wasn't clear.  the afd5 playing either the whiskey/roxy/troubadour would be wild… but the bird also thought that either the forum/staples/dodgers might be realistic as well because they could certainly sell them out for a night or two.  

but who knows with these fucking birds.  you can't depend on them.  not anymore. 

so, a little bird just came to my window and said:

warm up/anniversary show(s) in LA that will "feature" izzy and steven.  the bird didn't believe axl will ever tour with the afd5.  now, next year, ever.  unless the afd anniversary shows awaken something in him, like the spirit enters his body at rehearsal or during a show and he realizes how special the afd5 were together.  the bird wasn't sure if it would just be the afd5 for a couple songs or if they'd play appetite complete start to finish.  

my ex liked birds.  but that's all over now.   

Just now, Sosso said:

Cliff Williams wasn't a original member - Larry Van Kriedt, Mark Evans, etc. were in the band before him 

Phil Rudd wasn't a original member - Tony Currenti, Peter Clack, etc. were in the band before him

Bon Scott wasn't a original member - Dave Evans was in the band before him

The only originals since 1974 were Angus and Mal.

obviously that is correct… and my words should've been chosen better… my point was/is… that ac/dc WAS ac/dc when brian joined… it was a moving fluid thing… whereas i do not feel that now, i do not feel axl would be joining anything other that angus and the people angus is currently playing with, which is not ac/dc.  ac/dc at this point is over (for me imho).  when brian joined they were young men with the fire of youth driving them to write and create new great art.  the "non original" members of ac/dc continued working at the highest level and their records were incredible, arguably better or on par with anything their predecessors did.  you can't argue with greatness or success, but you can argue about "band members" who come into a band and bring nothing other than to play songs live that the real band members wrote years prior.     

like i said i just wish axl and angus would start a NEW band.  eric clapton didn't replace ginger baker and jack bruce and continue on as CREAM… he just started a new fucking thing… better than the last.  

if they make a record and put on a show and YOU enjoy it then i think that's great, i would never want to shit on something that brought someone true happiness… my point is just discussion and debate on a fan forum… when it comes down to it i support anything that makes anyone happy (within' reason).  

Just now, AxlsFavoriteRose said:

how 'bout calling it Angus and Friends?? since Angus is the only only left from the original AC/DC?

they should call it axl/dc… that way it's a wink and a nod at the fact it's not really ac/dc… but a unique hybrid all its own.  i love axl and angus for the record, i say all of this just as someone who wants to see them succeed, sometimes when there's no one around to say "no" rich rock stars can make bad decisions.   

Just now, J Dog said:

See, I guess that's where we start looking at it differently. I'm with you 100% on Axl and nuGuns. But you can say what you want, Brian was a replacement singer for the original lead singer, plain and simple. It just happen to work really well. So now Brian has health issues, and he may get replaced. To me that's different from Axl carrying on with Dj Ashba and Pittman. The original AC/DC died in 1980. Since then, it's been the band with a replacement non-original singer. No matter how you look at it.

I don't know, I stopped getting my panties in a bunch over names and members a long time ago, I guess I have too much going on to be to worried about band names these days. But, somebody dies, quits, gets kicked out, whatever, the original band is no more. If they choose to continue with different members, that's their business. I listen and think, hey that's pretty good and follows in the legacy and even though it's not the original I can still dig it, or I listen and think, well that's bullshit and they should be ashamed of carrying on this way. I put AXL/DC in the boat that it's pretty good and isn't embarrassing.

for me it's that brian joined ALL the original members… and then he created his own chapter with an excellent body of work that rivals his predecessors.  when there's ONLY ONE original member in a band i can't get behind it, it feels delusional and cheap.  if there's enough members participating (like say axl, slash, duff) then i can get behind them touring behind the original name despite all the original members not being present.  

look to be fair i take it all back if axl and angus create ANYTHING that is on par with bon and brian.  but again, i wish they'd just start a new band, give it a new name, start a new legacy, it's hard with just one original member to call it ac/dc… gnr… the rolling stones… i would hold any band to this standard.  

agree to disagree… 

Just now, Sosso said:

Nobody should have the the illusion that Brain was a desicion maker in the band. AC/DC has always been a family business by the Youngs. It's a very close circle that includes Angus, Stevie and George.

it's not the decision making stuff for me so much as it is brian is the sound of ac/dc, the second chapter of ac/dc is very special and shouldn't be fucked with… like angus shouldn't be greedy and push for a third chapter with axl.  it's so rare for a singer to be replaced in a way that is both successful commercially and creatively.  it just never works and i can't imagine it working twice.  

i'm so glad that slash and duff never reformed VR with a new singer, it's good that VR is what it is with scott, leave it alone. 

1 hour ago, BOSSY78 said:

Because just like everyone is doing now they tend to dissect and over think every thing said by them so just imagine if Axl, Slash or Duff gave any more interviews.

 

i agree, and i am certainly guilty myself, my issues stem from when the employees start talking like they were or are a band member. until richard does something substantial for the band he's just gilby's replacement (i believe in my heart that richard CAN do something substantial for the band if given the opportunity. i hope he gets it.)

my opinion, but i think they should do an interview at this point, i think it's time, i'd be fine with someone from team yes making the interviewer agree to not hit axl and slash with the hard curveballs that will pit them against one another… just some light questions about getting back together, maybe some light behind the scenes/onstage-offstage stuff… ROLLING STONE would lob them giant softballs because that's what rolling stone does when it interviews people… but i think a rolling stone cover story at this point would help reignite interest and sell whatever tickets are left, at least in the U.S. 

Just now, J Dog said:

I know right. Continuing with a band without it's original lead singer. It wold be like if the original lead singer from AC/DC died and they replaced him and kept on touring and making albums with a replacement lead singer.

yeah sorry bud, there are no similarities between bon scott dying tragically and being replaced by brian johnson (brian johnson with ALL original members of AC/DC) and axl joining angus' ac/dc cover band (that the lawyers will allow him to sell as AC/DC).  that'd be as cheap as axl rose playing with ALL employees and calling in guns n' roses.

Just now, J Dog said:

I like Brian and everything, and hope him the best and hope for the best with his health, but I'm perfectly fine with him retiring or whatever and us getting AXL/DC.

we all wish brian his health and happiness.  but axl/dc is not ac/dc.  if you saw mick jagger sing a stones song on stage with a backing band and NO members of the rolling stones… would you tell people you saw the rolling stones or would you tell people you saw mick jagger sing a rolling stones song solo?  

nothing wrong with axl and angus hitting it off and creating art together… just don't sell that shit as ac/dc because it's not.  

26 minutes ago, Kris_1989 said:

But on the other hand, I still think Izzy's silence speaks volumes. Something's up with that guy. I think he's bound to show up for at least guest spots in the next coming leg or will be a part of the newly announced shows.

his silence hopefully means something.  maybe izzy held out the first leg, his three band mates realized how bad they looked short changing the heart and soul of gnr and now they've met him half way and he feels comfortable participating.  I don't think it'll be every show... just the afd show or shows and then select countries/dates.  

it's all speculation but whatever it is... if it doesn't involve izzy and Steven I'll be disapponted (unless it's new music or an album with richard).  

i like richard too and i know he means well… but some of this stuff... there's so many layers of delusion… "we’re tighter and more focused than ever.”  like he's actually played with guns n' roses before, like guns n' roses has toured since 93.  at this point richard is a great replacement for izzy but not a real member, he's simply an axl holdover who remains on the payroll.  

no doubt he's a great guitarist though and i would love to see him write on a new record and earn his place like matt did.  i'm totally behind it.  but writing and touring for axl solo and now simply playing live with guns doesn't cut it to be talking like this.   

Just now, Gibson_Guy87 said:

GN'Rs place in rock history is already solidified. They were one of the biggest bands in the world from '88-'93 and were thought by many to be the next Rolling Stones and then they imploded. The AFD5 reuniting or not reuniting 27 years after they last played together won't change the band's legacy. It'll be part of their story when they finally call it quits, but not their legacy/place in history. 

 

And c'mon man. CD isn't that bad of an album 

i agree their legacy is remarkable, especially for the short period of time they were actually a working band, not to mention how young they were.  i guess my point is that i would rather see them go out as a band that got it together in the end rather than a band that imploded in the beginning.  regardless, what they've achieved together will be remembered forever.  

and i'm so so sorry my friend… but axl's solo record with hired employees that his lawyers enabled him to call "guns n' roses" is THAT bad.  all those layers can't hide the fact axl was lost and angry and needed his bandmates.    imho.    

but staying on topic… i do hope WHATEVER is announced is positive, is new, is fresh, and is something that propels the band forward...

i think she takes great shots… would love to see a hard cover coffee table book down the road… i'd also love to see DANNY CLINCH do something with guns.  

Just now, yourcrazy said:

I don't know why so much has been filmed and recorded and then hidden away.  

two words: axl. rose.  

i would hope someone from Team Yes opens the vaults and starts releasing things now that everyone's getting along.     

Just now, janrichmond said:

i think it will be the new single. Seriously, that's my guess.

see… you say things like this… and then i get excited.  i hope you're right.  it would make sense, there's seems to be a great energy amongst the three band members and their backing band, it would be amazing to see that channeled into something new.  if you're right… i hope it's not some 2001 axl employee demo that slash slapped a solo on.  i hope they got in a room face to face and wrote something new. 

1 hour ago, Kris_1989 said:

I think we all teared up when Steven came out that night.

ha… yeah… very special moment.  i loved how slash and duff engaged him before he left the stage, and i loved how he played so fucking well.  he was perfect, shutting up anyone who may have doubted who the drummer of this band is.  

anything shy of guns n roses reuniting for the first time since steven and then izzy left would be disappointing.  if the five members of guns n roses are on stage alone that will be powerful and truly a remarkable reunion, but if guns n' roses is forced to play with any of axl's employees or any of the touring employees who play behind axl, slash & duff that would be terrible, lame, and a real fuck you to what the band was and how the band will be remembered in history.

the other scary and unacceptable bullshit would be if guns n' roses played axl's solo material from CD.  while axl and team yes will no doubt continue to push to legitimize CD and axl's solo years… these should not be the shows to do so.  imho.    

21 hours ago, Modano09 said:

I know there's a lot of "they're in it for the money" being thrown around about the reunion but, I don't know. Axl seems like an man unburdened lately and I don't think an appearance like this, or AC/DC is something he'd be doing if he wasn't just happy - which, maybe, it took reuniting with Duff and Slash to achieve. 

it's absolutely because he got back with slash and duff, he's clearly a different man and there's a true return to form, slash and duff are his bandmates, the two men the creative gods aligned him with therefore they bring out something in axl that no other musicians can, certainly not tommy stinson or dj ashba or bucket foot.  axl slash and duff… and izzy and steven for that matter… are all better together and far less alone.  gnr was a clear "band"… there was no one principle, they all needed each other.  sometimes that gets lost on people because money and lawyers enabled axl to claim the gnr name, thus the perception of being the main guy to the casual public and fan.  he wasn't shit without his bandmates and they weren't shit without him.  

but it's the reconnection i think that motivates and inspires axl to get out and play with someone like billy joel.  it's great to see.