Vincent Vega Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 If GN'R/"Nu-GN'R" had released new records by now, do you think there would be such a stigma still attached with them?For example let's say CD came out in 1999/2000; CD in 2002/2003, CD III in 2006/2007 and CDIV next year, do you think the new band would be accepted as Guns by more people?What about yourself? Do you see the lack of new releases by the new band a factor in you not being able to see it as Guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbominableHoman Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Axl not being a reclusive dick is the biggest factor. Albums would have just tarnished the name and driven a larger spike in his audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyDRE Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 If the music was good, no one would care that Axl kept the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted December 24, 2010 Author Share Posted December 24, 2010 Axl not being a reclusive dick is the biggest factor. Albums would have just tarnished the name and driven a larger spike in his audience.Why do you say more albums would've tarnished the name? What if they were good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todo Poderoso Timão Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 If GN'R/"Nu-GN'R" had released new records by now, do you think there would be such a stigma still attached with them?For example let's say CD came out in 1999/2000; CD in 2002/2003, CD III in 2006/2007 and CDIV next year, do you think the new band would be accepted as Guns by more people?What about yourself? Do you see the lack of new releases by the new band a factor in you not being able to see it as Guns?No. the main factor for it to not be seen as GNR by public in general is Slash's abscence, and more CD releases wouldn't have changed it. Also, often line-up changes make it even worse. If Bucket/Robin had been kept since then it would be better for the image of GNR as a solid band. The way how things worked made it sounds like Slash couldn't be successfully replaced until now.Note: I don't necessarily agree, it is only how public in general thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew07 Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 i might have helped because chinese democracy was so hyped up by the media that everyone expected it to be super insanely epic good when it was only epic good haha, but i think the unpredictability of gnr is what keeps us going Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 If GN'R/"Nu-GN'R" had released new records by now, do you think there would be such a stigma still attached with them?For example let's say CD came out in 1999/2000; CD in 2002/2003, CD III in 2006/2007 and CDIV next year, do you think the new band would be accepted as Guns by more people?I don't think people would see it as "Guns N' Roses" as we know it, but I think they'd be respected as a band in their own right, which they are not at the minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitmanhart408 Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 What about yourself? Do you see the lack of new releases by the new band a factor in you not being able to see it as Guns?It's not the lack of releases as much as it is the quality of releases. I haven't listened to Chinese Democracy in 2 years.I've been listening to it almost everyday since release and the demos before that. So "quality" is not the issue.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 For the general public - yes. For those axl-haters, slash-lovers on this forum - no. Axl could put out ten number one albums and people on this forum would still say "those albums were only succesful because of the GnR brand name." I miss the late 80s and early 90s when bands put out an album every year or at least every two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 For the general public - yes. For those axl-haters, slash-lovers on this forum - no. Axl could put out ten number one albums and people on this forum would still say "those albums were only succesful because of the GnR brand name."I disagree. I think a majority of the problem isn't that Axl took the GNR name, it's that he took the name and did fuck all worthwhile with it for at least fifteen years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UK SUBS Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Let's be honest, Axl could have released the equivalent of Welcome to the Jungle, Sweet Child O' Mine and Paradise City with new GNR and we'd still get people on here saying it was shite, that's a fact.I think the mainstream would have excepted them far more but quality is far better than quantity, so it depends on your view on how good Chinese Democracy is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManetsBR Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyDRE Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Let's be honest, Axl could have released the equivalent of Welcome to the Jungle, Sweet Child O' Mine and Paradise City with new GNR and we'd still get people on here saying it was shite, that's a fact.Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda. He didn't.Quality is the #1 issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plonker88 Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 I don't think it would make a huge difference in people accepting them as Guns but as Conor said, there would be a lot more respect going their way for taking the name and advancing it on a continuous basis which, for whatever reason, is something that did not happen.It's a shame but those are the cards that were dealt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITW 2012 Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 I think things would be a lot different if they had toured and released 3 new albums by now. People are always going to want the old lineup because it made classic music and got things done. I'd take CD II over a reunion tour any day though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UK SUBS Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Let's be honest, Axl could have released the equivalent of Welcome to the Jungle, Sweet Child O' Mine and Paradise City with new GNR and we'd still get people on here saying it was shite, that's a fact.Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda. He didn't.Quality is the #1 issue.But I'm right though.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManetsBR Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 I think things would be a lot different if they had toured and released 3 new albums by now. People are always going to want the old lineup because it made classic music and got things done. I'd take CD II over a reunion tour any day though.Me too, I wouldn't think twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sandman Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Let's be honest, Axl could have released the equivalent of Welcome to the Jungle, Sweet Child O' Mine and Paradise City with new GNR and we'd still get people on here saying it was shite, that's a fact.Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda. He didn't.Quality is the #1 issue.Most of us are pretty happy to be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plonker88 Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Ron grew a beard......? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 For the general public - yes. For those axl-haters, slash-lovers on this forum - no. Axl could put out ten number one albums and people on this forum would still say "those albums were only succesful because of the GnR brand name."I disagree. I think a majority of the problem isn't that Axl took the GNR name, it's that he took the name and did fuck all worthwhile with it for at least fifteen years.I respectfully disagree. I'm a fan of the old band. But I just don't understand why any "fan" still carries a grudge about the actual "name" of a band. It makes no sense to me. Slash, duff and Izzy have all moved on - but a small section of fans can't. Weird..Personally, the name of a band has no bearing on my musical preference. Appetite and Chinese Democracy are two of my favorite albums because of the MUSIC that is on those two albums. I could care less the name of the band or what members are in the band. I'm in this for the music - nothing else..Also. Nothing axl does in the next 50 years should ever effect what anybody thinks about the songs from lies, appetite or Illusions..I have no concept of why anybody except members of the actual band should care about the "name" of the band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 For the general public - yes. For those axl-haters, slash-lovers on this forum - no. Axl could put out ten number one albums and people on this forum would still say "those albums were only succesful because of the GnR brand name."I disagree. I think a majority of the problem isn't that Axl took the GNR name, it's that he took the name and did fuck all worthwhile with it for at least fifteen years.I respectfully disagree. I'm a fan of the old band. But I just don't understand why any "fan" still carries a grudge about the actual "name" of a band. It makes no sense to me. Slash, duff and Izzy have all moved on - but a small section of fans can't. Weird..Personally, the name of a band has no bearing on my musical preference. Appetite and Chinese Democracy are two of my favorite albums because of the MUSIC that is on those two albums. I could care less the name of the band or what members are in the band. I'm in this for the music - nothing else..Also. Nothing axl does in the next 50 years should ever effect what anybody thinks about the songs from lies, appetite or Illusions..I have no concept of why anybody except members of the actual band should care about the "name" of the band.I completely agree with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Caller Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 When I first heard The Blues leak in 2006, I was pretty excited. I really thought Axl could create a great album with some potential. But when I finally discovered that the final product had such shitty songs like This I Love and If The World among some others like Scraped, I was extremely disappointed. Definitely not what I was expecting. Like someone already stated, it's the quality that counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 And Conner, I agree with you 100 percent that the biggest and most sad thing about all of this? No music for 15 years. Tragedy in terms of the music world. 5 albums in 15 years is not too much to "wish" for from a band. Think how awesome it would be to have 60-70 more songs out there right now with Axl singing on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Use Your Delusion 1 Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Talking of preferring CD2 to a reunion is pointless and neither will happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gunns5 Posted December 25, 2010 Share Posted December 25, 2010 (edited) Cd2 will happen , prob not in 2011 unless late 2011 but 2012 is more likely Edited December 25, 2010 by gunns5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts