This is Guns N' Roses-here's why.

[bax]

I can't tell you how many people I've tried to turn on to CD that haven't given me the argument "that's not Guns N' Roses" and refused to even give it a chance. I'm betting that's the majority view. But it really doesn't hold water, here's why.

A band is analogous to a relationship in my estimation. The bonds run very deep. There has to be a pretty intense level of empathy, good communication and trust. So when a member has an issue with the direction the band is headed in, obviously they have the right to assess whether they want to continue. Ultimately, Axl did not fire Izzy, Slash, and Duff. They walked away, totally for their own reasons. So in my opinion, Axl is not Guns N; Roses. But clearly, he runs the franchise. Does it really matter who wrote what and who played what on the CD? No. Every guitar track is properly credited. It captures a moment. Simple as that. Songwriters and performers get royalties for their work. The touring band was hired to interpret the material for a live audience, When you are talking about material with as complex in it's arrangements as CD, it is more about compositions than songs per se. Axl is more of a conductor than a frontman in the traditional sense. If you go to see a symphony, doe you bitch that Beethoven didn't make the gig? Fuck no, you just go with it. peace.

[highend88]

Fuck yeah of course Chinese Democracy IS a GNR Material. Pity that haters would not give them a chance to have a deep listen into the album.

For me every GNR material that Axl wrote is a GNR material, even Oh My God...

The God is back and fuck the haters!

[gunsguy]

I see that since Madison is gone,this place is now becoming a HTGTH-like worship site.

naw just the fan forum it USED to be... we are excited cause the band we are here for are making it exciting

[axlfan88]

I can't tell you how many people I've tried to turn on to CD that haven't given me the argument "that's not Guns N' Roses" and refused to even give it a chance. I'm betting that's the majority view. But it really doesn't hold water, here's why.

A band is analogous to a relationship in my estimation. The bonds run very deep. There has to be a pretty intense level of empathy, good communication and trust. So when a member has an issue with the direction the band is headed in, obviously they have the right to assess whether they want to continue. Ultimately, Axl did not fire Izzy, Slash, and Duff. They walked away, totally for their own reasons. So in my opinion, Axl is not Guns N; Roses. But clearly, he runs the franchise. Does it really matter who wrote what and who played what on the CD? No. Every guitar track is properly credited. It captures a moment. Simple as that. Songwriters and performers get royalties for their work. The touring band was hired to interpret the material for a live audience, When you are talking about material with as complex in it's arrangements as CD, it is more about compositions than songs per se. Axl is more of a conductor than a frontman in the traditional sense. If you go to see a symphony, doe you bitch that Beethoven didn't make the gig? Fuck no, you just go with it. peace.

Not really convincing.

When I listen to Axl's band covering GNR's classic songs or even the CD songs, the analogy that pops in my head is that a fake Picasso can look very similar to the original. But it's still a fake Picasso...

[gunsguy]

This is not a touring band, this is Guns N' Roses wait and see

[bax]

I see that since Madison is gone,this place is now becoming a HTGTH-like worship site.

I don't worship shit man. I'm a total agnostic. I don't believe in belief. this argument is valid, I defy anyone to shoot it down. calling it fanboy worship is just plain weak. do better. if the band does something I don't agree with I assure you it will be noted. you don't know me, don't assume you know my motives. read through any of my past thread,s there are many criticisms of Axl and co. peace.

[mrandyk]

This band is Guns n Roses in name only.

[Jackie Moon]

I see that since Madison is gone,this place is now becoming a HTGTH-like worship site.

wtf ever. if that were true you wouldnt be here. just cause madison was demoted doesnt mean its htgth. madisons still here, she can still give her opinions.

you need to understand that it is possible and reasonable for people to like this new band, even like it more than the old.

you know there are people who were alive and aware in the 80's - 90's that never once liked gnr / slash? it seems some of you think you have to 1.be a gnr fan 2.prefer the old band. no where is that written. i for one straight up prefer buckethead to slash. i have not seen either live so that '"your not old enough to know about the original line up" argument is irrelevent.

if that guy thinks this is gnr, thats his opinion and its as valid as anyones. personally, im on the fence, i think both sides have a point in this argument. on one hand, yeah its clearly not original guns, but on the other hand, i think its in the spirit of guns. axl has done what he wanted regardless of popular opinion and everybody who doesnt like it can fuck off. seems familear. also the progression from afd>uyi is matched yui>cd imo so musically speaking i think there is at least a foot in the gnr tradition.

in closing, just cause somebody likes CD and madison is unstable, dont cry HTGTH.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Jackie Moon

[bax]

I can't tell you how many people I've tried to turn on to CD that haven't given me the argument "that's not Guns N' Roses" and refused to even give it a chance. I'm betting that's the majority view. But it really doesn't hold water, here's why.

A band is analogous to a relationship in my estimation. The bonds run very deep. There has to be a pretty intense level of empathy, good communication and trust. So when a member has an issue with the direction the band is headed in, obviously they have the right to assess whether they want to continue. Ultimately, Axl did not fire Izzy, Slash, and Duff. They walked away, totally for their own reasons. So in my opinion, Axl is not Guns N; Roses. But clearly, he runs the franchise. Does it really matter who wrote what and who played what on the CD? No. Every guitar track is properly credited. It captures a moment. Simple as that. Songwriters and performers get royalties for their work. The touring band was hired to interpret the material for a live audience, When you are talking about material with as complex in it's arrangements as CD, it is more about compositions than songs per se. Axl is more of a conductor than a frontman in the traditional sense. If you go to see a symphony, doe you bitch that Beethoven didn't make the gig? Fuck no, you just go with it. peace.

Not really convincing.

When I listen to Axl's band covering GNR's classic songs or even the CD songs, the analogy that pops in my head is that a fake Picasso can look very similar to the original. But it's still a fake Picasso...

Comparing audio to a visual medium is apples and oranges, but I'll meet you there if that's what works for you. "fake" is a bullshit word, period. an exact reproduction is not fake. it may be a copy, but it's not fake. a better analogy would be buying an art print of a Picasso. now granted, it's nothing like seeing the full work in the flesh. textures, shading, color contrast, etc. are not really reproduced well-it may be a 2d image, but it's a 3d medium. Same thing with a cd. The audio is captured at a certain bitrate and has to be compressed to be burned to cd. compressed even further for mp3. neither is ever going to be an accurate picture of what the songs sounded like through the studio monitors when the record was mixed and mastered. i know from my own experience recording tracks at home and then having to upload them for My Space or what not. Night and Day. So I'm sure Axl would have everyone listen to CD as recorded, through top of the line speakers in a proper studio. not possible. so you go to a gig, you get your face melted. if you wanna bitch about that experience, you really should find a new hobby. peace.

This band is Guns n Roses in name only.

In 2001 ECW shut down. Vince McMahon (Billionaire WWE owner) bought the rights to the name of the company that tons of people helped build. He brought ECW back to WWE TV in 2006 but it was so far removed form what made it ECW that virtually nobody cared. Vince finally pulled the plug on ECW a few weeks ago,though true fans knew it had been gone for years.

Axl is more of a conductor than a frontman in the traditional sense. If you go to see a symphony, doe you bitch that Beethoven didn't make the gig? Fuck no, you just go with it. peace.

So basically ANYBODY can be brought in by Axl and it is still Guns N' Roses? Sure thing,Brosef.

yes. absolutely. your issue with that is?

[there is no dana only zool]

I am one extremely damn proud fan of GN'R these days. Don't get me wrong; always have been, but I just feel like we have been given so, so much cool shit to enjoy lately. The band sounds and looks awesome and just the way everyone performs- it's so exciting to watch. Band rules.

[GN'R Forever]

This band is Guns n Roses in name only.

In 2001 ECW shut down. Vince McMahon (Billionaire WWE owner) bought the rights to the name of the company that tons of people helped build. He brought ECW back to WWE TV in 2006 but it was so far removed form what made it ECW that virtually nobody cared. Vince finally pulled the plug on ECW a few weeks ago,though true fans knew it had been gone for years.

Axl is more of a conductor than a frontman in the traditional sense. If you go to see a symphony, doe you bitch that Beethoven didn't make the gig? Fuck no, you just go with it. peace.

So basically ANYBODY can be brought in by Axl and it is still Guns N' Roses? Sure thing,Brosef.

How can you compare this to ECW? First of all, this is Guns n' roses, not pro wrestling. Second, Axl was in the original Guns N' Roses, Vince McMahon wasn't in the original ECW, so that already makes this a shitty analogy.

And lastly, you have to remember: Slash, Duff, Izzy, and Matt walked out on their own terms. They were obviously done being apart of Guns N' Roses. DJ Ashba, Fortus, Ron, etc. WANT to be apart of Guns N' Roses.

Bottom line: It's Guns N' Roses.

[ThinkAboutYou]

I love both versions of GNR

Basically I believe the version from 1985-1991 is Guns N Roses and the version 1996-2010 is NEW GNR

i'm just saying they aren't the same thing it's like calling lemonade and coke the same thing when clearly they are different

Axl is still my favorite member

Edited February 13, 2010 by ThinkAboutYou

[ChapelRoses]

this place is now becoming a HTGTH-like worship site.

Well excuse people for being excited about Guns N' Roses at the current time.

I honestly don't understand all the people that have a problem with backing Axl or the band.

Me? I'm just a GNR fan, I really don't do the "this is what Axl should do" or "this is what Axl should have done" stuff. It's his show, and like he says he doesn't work for me, I choose to spend my time following GNR, I choose to support them, I ain't being asked to or forced. I mean if Axl, or anyone else who doesn't know me, dropped by my work or class and started telling me everything I was doing wrong, what to do or say, and bashing me, I'd say fuck off.

I don't have a problem with anyone venting their own personal opinions about the band, but it's just fucking stupid to attack people for being pro-GNR. Lumping them all into the same category.

I saw them in London and they put on one hell of a show. I have no complaints and am excited to see them again as soon as possible. Just because others have their own opinions on how things should be or not be doesn't mean anyone else is obligated to see things the same way.

[axlfan88]

"fake" is a bullshit word, period. an exact reproduction is not fake.

Who do you wanna impress with that kind of sophism ?

Axl owns legally the name, we know that. But for a lot of people, it's not Guns N'Roses anymore, it's only Axl's project. We shouldn't even call it "Axl's band" since they don't even really work as a band, more as a back-up band.

I would say the same if Slash owned the name and had hired a new singer and a bunch of new guitarists to play with him under the GNR brand... It would look and sound fake.

i'm just saying they aren't the same thing it's like calling lemonade and coke the same thing when clearly they are different

This.

Edited February 13, 2010 by axlfan88

[RocketKing99]

This band is Guns n Roses in name only.

In 2001 ECW shut down. Vince McMahon (Billionaire WWE owner) bought the rights to the name of the company that tons of people helped build. He brought ECW back to WWE TV in 2006 but it was so far removed form what made it ECW that virtually nobody cared. Vince finally pulled the plug on ECW a few weeks ago,though true fans knew it had been gone for years.

Axl is more of a conductor than a frontman in the traditional sense. If you go to see a symphony, doe you bitch that Beethoven didn't make the gig? Fuck no, you just go with it. peace.

So basically ANYBODY can be brought in by Axl and it is still Guns N' Roses? Sure thing,Brosef.

Axl is GN'R. For more info, check out Slash's November Rain ft. Jamie Foxx and T-Pain.

Brosef.

[bax]

I love both versions of GNR

Basically I believe the version from 1985-1991 is Guns N Roses and the version 1996-2010 is NEW GNR

I still love the new band the music is awesome

i'm just saying they aren't the same thing it's like calling lemonade and coke the same thing when clearly they are different

i never said they were the same thing. you have to understand, as a musician, you are ultimately a product of everything you take in. over this many years, that's going to be a lot of different shit. so the band is a living organism and it evolves, simple as that. When a baby rhino grows up, it's still a rhino. Why do people have this preconception that a band is a static thing that will fit neatly in a box? it makes no fucking sense. granted, music is deemed a product by society as a whole, but it's not fucking Colgate where you expect 100% tube to tube consistency. If the Beatles or Zeppelin had continued to release the same album over and over, they would've been boring and not had the impact they have had. case closed. next?

[Jackie Moon]

I love both versions of GNR

Basically I believe the version from 1985-1991 is Guns N Roses and the version 1996-2010 is NEW GNR

i'm just saying they aren't the same thing it's like calling lemonade and coke the same thing when clearly they are different

this is how i feel about it as well. i think its a 'each to their own' situation.

except i think people saying "its not guns n roses" is incredibly childish. you have nothing to base that on besides your own personal feelings of what gnr is. objectively speaking it IS guns n' roses regardless of how much you kick and scream. if you want to say "i dont feel its guns n roses", yeah i can understand that. but to say "its NOT guns n roses" is ridiculous.

wikipedia says its gnr so its gnr. deal with it.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Jackie Moon

[bax]

"fake" is a bullshit word, period. an exact reproduction is not fake.

Who do you wanna impress with that kind of sophism ?

Axl owns legally the name, we know that. But for a lot of people, it's not Guns N'Roses anymore, it's only Axl's project. We shouldn't even call it "Axl's band" since they don't even really work as a band, more as a back-up band.

I would say the same if Slash owned the name and had hired a new singer and a bunch of new guitarists to play with him under the GNR brand... It would look and sound fake.

i'm just saying they aren't the same thing it's like calling lemonade and coke the same thing when clearly they are different

This.

well, i don't try to impress, i just let it flow naturally. it would come even quicker and you would see it is totally organic and visceral if the admins didn't have me limited as to how quickly i can respond. but as to your point, i get it. i have a sentimental attachment to the old band too. read my last post though, don't want to recapitulate when it's not necessary. we really don't have much of a disagreement. peace.

[ThinkAboutYou]

I love both versions of GNR

Basically I believe the version from 1985-1991 is Guns N Roses and the version 1996-2010 is NEW GNR

I still love the new band the music is awesome

i'm just saying they aren't the same thing it's like calling lemonade and coke the same thing when clearly they are different

i never said they were the same thing. you have to understand, as a musician, you are ultimately a product of everything you take in. over this many years, that's going to be a lot of different shit. so the band is a living organism and it evolves, simple as that. When a baby rhino grows up, it's still a rhino. Why do people have this preconception that a band is a static thing that will fit neatly in a box? it makes no fucking sense. granted, music is deemed a product by society as a whole, but it's not fucking Colgate where you expect 100% tube to tube consistency. If the Beatles or Zeppelin had continued to release the same album over and over, they would've been boring and not had the impact they have had. case closed. next?

Yeah but 4/5 of the band left so they didn't evolve they were replaced so clearly different band NEW GNR

Edited February 13, 2010 by ThinkAboutYou

[FuddMckagan]

Different people have different ideas of what GnR is. Personally, I don't call this lineup Guns N Roses, I usually call it New GnR or something along those lines. That doesn't mean I don't like this lineup.

1985-1996(ish) is GnR to me. If its not for you, that's cool. Just don't expect everyone to call this lineup Guns N Roses.

[ThinkAboutYou]

wikipedia says its gnr so its gnr. deal with it.

I believe wikipedia

[axlfan88]

except i think people saying "its not guns n roses" is incredibly childish. you have nothing to base that on besides your own personal feelings of what gnr is. objectively speaking it IS guns n' roses regardless of how much you kick and scream. if you want to say "i dont feel its guns n roses", yeah i can understand that. but to say "its NOT guns n roses" is ridiculous.

wikipedia says its gnr so its gnr. deal with it.

Izzy Stradlin, co-founder of GNR, must be incredibly childish because he stated in an interview that Axl's band is "obviously not Guns N'Roses."

Edited February 13, 2010 by axlfan88

[bax]

I love both versions of GNR

Basically I believe the version from 1985-1991 is Guns N Roses and the version 1996-2010 is NEW GNR

I still love the new band the music is awesome

i'm just saying they aren't the same thing it's like calling lemonade and coke the same thing when clearly they are different

i never said they were the same thing. you have to understand, as a musician, you are ultimately a product of everything you take in. over this many years, that's going to be a lot of different shit. so the band is a living organism and it evolves, simple as that. When a baby rhino grows up, it's still a rhino. Why do people have this preconception that a band is a static thing that will fit neatly in a box? it makes no fucking sense. granted, music is deemed a product by society as a whole, but it's not fucking Colgate where you expect 100% tube to tube consistency. If the Beatles or Zeppelin had continued to release the same album over and over, they would've been boring and not had the impact they have had. case closed. next?

Yeah but 4/5 of the band left so they didn't evolve they were replaced so clearly different band

bullshit. GN"R has been around a long time and have a legacy. So have the Yankees. Year after year, they trot out a new line-up, maybe win a title, maybe not. but it's still the yankees. now if we have to get all semantic on this, Axl owns the name. period. but I won't throw that card in because I can back my arguments up without it. You have a very, very limited perspective about music. probably about reality as well, but that's for another time. peace.

[there is no dana only zool]

I see that since Madison is gone...

(not to turn this into another one of those discussions, BUT...)- I love it. To be brutally honest, I used to brace myself every time I'd log on here for fear that I'd see something new she posted that was just so clearly NOT supportive of the new band. I'm not talking about basic criticism, I'm talking about outright slams that no genuine fan would ever post- only someone with an actual agenda for bringing the band down, but with enough phony "the band looks great!" stuff sprinkled in here and there to still be able to say "I support them! I am a fan!" when Dexter finally called her out on it. Maybe those rumors of her being barred from the backstage area or afterparties at MSG 06 were true and pissed her off enough to try and wage some kind of secret war against Axl; I don't know, but I was convinced she was angry about something and wanted attention. Welp, lol she finally got it haha. To quote IndianaRose's sig, "Don't assail the rose or you'll get the thorns."

[bax]

I see that since Madison is gone...

(not to turn this into another one of those discussions, BUT...)- I love it. To be brutally honest, I used to brace myself every time I'd log on here for fear that I'd see something new she posted that was just so clearly NOT supportive of the new band. I'm not talking about basic criticism, I'm talking about outright slams that no genuine fan would ever post- only someone with an actual agenda for bringing the band down, but with enough phony "the band looks great!" stuff sprinkled in here and there to still be able to say "I support them! I am a fan!" when Dexter finally called her out on it. Maybe those rumors of her being barred from the backstage area or afterparties at MSG 06 were true and pissed her off enough to try and wage some kind of secret war against Axl; I don't know, but I was convinced she was angry about something and wanted attention. Welp, lol she finally got it haha. To quote IndianaRose's sig, "Don't assail the rose or you'll get the thorns."

yes. I would not be posting all this if she was here. the thread would have been sent to dust n' bones or outright deleted in minutes. the wicked witch is dead. peace.