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

[Guest floyd the barber]

I don't get why this is such a big deal. Everywhere people just complain like "This isn't Guns N' Roses, should be called "Axl Rose and Co." Nothing irritates me more. Axl was supposed to change the name of his band because Slash and them left? That wouldn't even make sense. If people don't want to listen to GnR because of different band members I think that's just ignorant.

I don't think you understand.

Many of us don't like the new version of Guns N' Roses because their music style has changed and a lot of that has to do with the new members. I probably would of liked Chinese Democracy more if Axl had some more piano driven tracks on it. I loved the Illusions and the piano, This I Love doesn't cut it.

[Sweersa]

This is Guns N' Roses. Anyone who doesn't see or understands that really needs to leave because they are holding those of us with brains and common sense back.

If you think people with differing views is people holding you back then im sorry but clearly you are doing a great job of holding yourself back

Mind tricks only work on the weak minded.

[LightningBolt]

Edit: Yes, as Lightningbolt found, I omitted Izzy's name by accident. My bad. I got confused listing names in haste first name and some by last name, and I was focusing on the arguments at hand. I probably shouldn't have kids, if any went missing I might not notice.

Hahah, I was kidding if it makes you feel any better.

[GeorgeGlass]

When you lose 80% of something, it isn't something anymore.

[RocketKing99]

When you lose 80% of something, it isn't something anymore.

Says who? George Glass?

Edited February 14, 2010 by RocketKing99

[GeorgeGlass]

When you lose 80% of something, it isn't something anymore.

Says who? George Glass?

Says common sense, not the Axl ass licking, ass kissing people on this forum. Axl should really ask himself what he would do to Prostitute himself - take the GNR name, that's what. Maybe that song is about himself.

[plonker88]

lol at people in this thread.

[bax]

When you lose 80% of something, it isn't something anymore.

Says who? George Glass?

Says common sense, not the Axl ass licking, ass kissing people on this forum. Axl should really ask himself what he would do to Prostitute himself - take the GNR name, that's what. Maybe that song is about himself.

That is an interesting point. I've thought that a lot of the lyrics on CD could be introspective. When I first heard "Sorry" I thought it was Axl having a conversation with himself. The same for "Prostitute" and "Better." "Street of Dreams" could easily be interpreted as Axl reflecting on his past. I thought maybe Axl had finally gotten rid of his demons, or was at least working on it.

My initial thoughts on CD was that Axl had just released a therapy session. After seeing Axl's interviews and comments since the release though I've gotta admit I don't know what the songs are really about. Maybe CD is a concept album about the lonely life of a slightly unhinged megalomaniac?

i believe you have hit the nail on the head. that's my personal take anyway.peace.

[saber_]

it needs more izzy

[bax]

lol at people in this thread.

lol @ people w/no sense of irony.

it needs more izzy

i agree wholeheartedly. i would trade any of the current guitarists for Izzy in a heartbeat. but it won't happen, so enjoy what you have.

[ThinkAboutYou]

I'm enjoying what we have

it's the next best thing to original GNR

Edited February 15, 2010 by ThinkAboutYou

[Jackie Moon]

When you lose 80% of something, it isn't something anymore.

Says who? George Glass?

Says common sense, not the Axl ass licking, ass kissing people on this forum. Axl should really ask himself what he would do to Prostitute himself - take the GNR name, that's what. Maybe that song is about himself.

thanks for representing common sense.

[Used To Love Me]

When you lose 80% of something, it isn't something anymore.

Says who? George Glass?

Says common sense, not the Axl ass licking, ass kissing people on this forum. Axl should really ask himself what he would do to Prostitute himself - take the GNR name, that's what. Maybe that song is about himself.

thanks for representing common sense.

Except Axl always HAD the GNR name - he didn't snatch it away. This tired argument is nothing but boring now. It's the band's name. Axl Rose created a band with the name Guns N' Roses 25 years ago... it's nothing new. Bands get new members all the time.

There's a whole special place to talk about how much you love the old members, right here on this same forum. Otherwise, why not just let people enjoy the current band that is touring RIGHT NOW and having a great run?

[GeorgeGlass]

When you lose 80% of something, it isn't something anymore.

Says who? George Glass?

Says common sense, not the Axl ass licking, ass kissing people on this forum. Axl should really ask himself what he would do to Prostitute himself - take the GNR name, that's what. Maybe that song is about himself.

thanks for representing common sense.

Just think about some of the songs on CD. Prostitute could easily be someone talking to Axl about Axl, or Axl talking to himself. Same goes with Sorry. It's an entirely different take on what those songs could be about. Part of what makes complex songs/art so great is trying to interpret them. For example, I absolutely LOVED the final scene of the Sopranos, where David Chase takes you through an evening from the perspective of Tony Soprano - EVERYONE is suspect, you cannot sit with your back to the door, and then the SILENCE. That final scene isn't intended to make the viewer wonder if Tony lived or died - rather, it was intended to give you a quick glimpse into Tony's life and how he never, ever feels safe...sorry I digress but I couldn't help it.

[Jackie Moon]

no i agree, it was quite awhile before axl commented on the songs and we got to hear what he ment by them, in that time we, or at least i, had a chance to interpert the songs in my own way, it kind of personalizes it. when axl told us the true meanings, it was nice to hear his take but for the most part i stick to my own meanings.

i dont care what dexter says, shacklers is about a pirate, and he made madison walked the plank.

[karlossacanell]

I'm enjoying what we have

it's the next best thing to original GNR

Same here

[GeorgeGlass]

I'm enjoying what we have

it's the next best thing to original GNR

Same here

I will agree with this completely. Never have the old GNR but at least to have Axl performing again is great.

[springclean]

Does it really matter who wrote what and who played what on the CD?

Yes, it does.

If I want to hear just anyone play this music I could as well go and see a cover band or turn to YouTube for guitar players a million times better than Ashba and Bumble together.

The fact they were picked by Axl doesn't make them any more credible or worth listening to me. I hear what I hear and I don't hear anything when these guys play. They could play the songs 100% like on the recording, they will never FEEL them and be able to express that FEELING regardless their skills and attitude.

When Buckethead played Nightrain the hairs on my neck stood up and I couldn't take my eyes off (and he didn't even write that song!) but when Bumble plays CITR or TWAT I just want to go and get a beer until Axl returns.

That's the difference. For me. You have a point with that Beethoven thing though but then again BH and Finck are alive and kicking it's just that personal business and diva-shit that keeps us from seing the ORIGINALS perform.

If you could pick a show with Buckethead or with the current lineup - what show would you attend?

Starting a new band with new songs was one thing but replacing the new guys the minute the album kicks off instead of creating an environment for everyone to stay and get along (= leading/managing a BAND) is repectless to your own work.

[Arkham17]

it's so easy

gnr: axl, slash, duff, izzy, adler

eso es guns, esa es la banda màs peligrosa del mundo, nadie màs, nadie menos.

[realpoti]

it's so easy

gnr: axl, slash, duff, izzy, adler

eso es guns, esa es la banda màs peligrosa del mundo, nadie màs, nadie menos.

Luiz ??

[SunnyDRE]

Slash to Axl: VIP was all on me

Now you're at the bar with 1 or 2 drinks

Poppin game, you look so lame

Without me your pimpin aint the same

First class flights

Dipped in ice

I had your neck and wrist oh so bright

Poppin tags, is a thing of the past

You lost the things you had chasin those scallywags

Edited February 16, 2010 by SunnyDRE

[ThinkAboutYou]

Fans are divided over the name

Most still see that the new band are talented musicians

Edited February 16, 2010 by ThinkAboutYou

[Used To Love Me]

When you lose 80% of something, it isn't something anymore.

Says who? George Glass?

Says common sense, not the Axl ass licking, ass kissing people on this forum. Axl should really ask himself what he would do to Prostitute himself - take the GNR name, that's what. Maybe that song is about himself.

thanks for representing common sense.

Except Axl always HAD the GNR name - he didn't snatch it away. This tired argument is nothing but boring now. It's the band's name. Axl Rose created a band with the name Guns N' Roses 25 years ago... it's nothing new. Bands get new members all the time.

There's a whole special place to talk about how much you love the old members, right here on this same forum. Otherwise, why not just let people enjoy the current band that is touring RIGHT NOW and having a great run?

Nonsense, Axl was part of the classic band which recorded AFD not the owner of the name back then. He extorted their share or refused to tour. You make it sound like izzy, Slash, Duff and Stephen were just employees reporting to Axl which is completely false...Stop perpetuating a lie...........

He came up with the name, nobody even argues that. Slash didn't give a damn about the name being kept by Axl at the time and neither did anyone else.

He had more claim to the title GNR than any of the other single members - so what's the problem? If Slash and Co. had fired Axl back in the day and replaced him would it have been ok to call the band Guns?

Seriously - to MOST fans (not we hardcore ones, here) the only members that mattered were Axl and Slash. Nobody gavce a shit when Steven was replaced, nobody cared when Izzy wasn't there anymore. Same would have happened with Duff, guaranteed. Slash doesn't WANT a band named Guns N' Roses.... so why can't Axl have it?

[dalsh327]

If you want to turn someone on to their music, just put it on in the background, and let them figure out who it is. When you say GNR some people are going to have that knee jerk reaction. you mentioned.

If for some wild reason Tracii Guns joined GNR in 2010, would there even be a debate about the name GNR?

You don't just walk away from something you love and made a great living from unless it was THAT bad. Friendships and relationships can be ruined from a band. The Kinks, Oasis, The Jacksons, Beach Boys, etc. But I think music had changed from the time they began working on UYI to the end of the tour, that when they began working on something new, I think a mix of things set in... wanting to outdo themselves, the overall change in rock music that was going on in the 90s, possible writers block, enjoying the money they made, having families, soul searching, etc...

I wouldn't call Axl a conductor, more like an arranger and producer. But Paul Buckmaster is a conductor.

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.

[dalsh327]

When you lose 80% of something, it isn't something anymore.

Says who? George Glass?

Says common sense, not the Axl ass licking, ass kissing people on this forum. Axl should really ask himself what he would do to Prostitute himself - take the GNR name, that's what. Maybe that song is about himself.

thanks for representing common sense.

Except Axl always HAD the GNR name - he didn't snatch it away. This tired argument is nothing but boring now. It's the band's name. Axl Rose created a band with the name Guns N' Roses 25 years ago... it's nothing new. Bands get new members all the time.

There's a whole special place to talk about how much you love the old members, right here on this same forum. Otherwise, why not just let people enjoy the current band that is touring RIGHT NOW and having a great run?

Nonsense, Axl was part of the classic band which recorded AFD not the owner of the name back then. He extorted their share or refused to tour. You make it sound like izzy, Slash, Duff and Stephen were just employees reporting to Axl which is completely false...Stop perpetuating a lie...........

He came up with the name, nobody even argues that. Slash didn't give a damn about the name being kept by Axl at the time and neither did anyone else.

He had more claim to the title GNR than any of the other single members - so what's the problem? If Slash and Co. had fired Axl back in the day and replaced him would it have been ok to call the band Guns?

Seriously - to MOST fans (not we hardcore ones, here) the only members that mattered were Axl and Slash. Nobody gavce a shit when Steven was replaced, nobody cared when Izzy wasn't there anymore. Same would have happened with Duff, guaranteed. Slash doesn't WANT a band named Guns N' Roses.... so why can't Axl have it?

Axl, Slash Stephen and Izzy played together before Axl ever played with Tracii Guns and there was a Guns n Roses. Axl may or may not have come up with the name but the facts are the classic band was a band of five members, Axl, Izzy, Slash, Duff and Stephen. Axl did not own sole rights to the band until he bascially forced the others to sign over their rights or he would have refused to tour. The others were strung out and needed the money so they signed their rights away. This has been documented by former members and those close to the band.....How do you know the others did not give a shit about the band name? If they had been in their right mind and known what they were giving up I doubt they would have agreed so easily..back in those days they did whatever it took to get Axl on stage... They were wimps no doubt but do you think it was right what Axl did to his so called "brothers"?

I am a big Stones fan and Keef Richards spent the 70's in a heroin induced fog by his own admission. Mick Jagger handled all the business arrangements because Keef couldn't and Mick realized the Stones were more than just him.......Axl should have learned a lesson from Sir Mick..........

Axl might own the band name but that does not make it morally right to tour as the only original member...Imagine if Mick Jagger toured as the Stones with a back up band or Robert plant toured as Led Zeppelin with his solo band.

Axl may own the rights to the name but that is just legal bullshit, don't think for a minute it is still Guns N Roses. ..That band died a long time ago..........

Mick Jagger was far from a brilliant business mind than people give him credit for (but does play a part in the marketing, merchandising and the look of the show), it took until recently to acquire all the early era, but Sir Rupert made them very very wealthy. U2 and Dave Clark Five are the only bands to own everything they've ever done, master tapes and publishing. Keith was still coming up with great songs, even at his worst... or you can blame Ron Wood joining the Stones.

I think Mick came to the realization he wasn't the Stones when Keith Richards made a better solo album than he did, and Mick did that Japan tour with Satriani. But it's no different than when Page and Coverdale played there and didn't tour anywhere else. Almost like they're being sneaky little boys... I also think when Mick gave up on movie stardom, the music improved. Even though that movie he did with Andy Garcia was decent.

Jagger did actually produce and mix "Exile" because Jimmy Miller was too high to work on it, but they've been working on a special edition due out this year.

I don't know many bands that have been successful at managing themselves and dealing directly with the business end of things. There have been people who left the band they were in and became the tour manager - Ian Stewart was a big part of the Stones behind the scenes, and I think his death during Dirty Work was when they really went unglued as a band.