Do you think Nu Guns will eventually become a band that can stand on their own?

[Bobbo]

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?

[Nick85]

I think the next album will be a deciding factor regarding the future of GNR. Word is, that's coming sooner than many of us expected.

[Snowmass]

If CD had been released 5-7 yrs prior, it/they had a chance. I think CD is awesome, just too much time passed between 1991 and it's release. Even the original GnR would prob have trouble selling new material, although they'd draw huge demand touring. Axl's pushing 50, and unfortunately the chances of another mega hit (publicly wise) is probably slim-none. The 7+years of no Axl and then returning with all new members kinda through the public for a loop. They had moved on.

[Ali]

I think the next album will be a deciding factor regarding the future of GNR. Word is, that's coming sooner than many of us expected.

Uh, what? What word? And from whom? Please tell me this isn't based on the word of a certain wrestler, or retired wrestler, or whatever

Ali

[Apollo]

Yes and no.

For the people who are obsessed with Slash, Duff and Izzy and who can't get past Axl keeping the name.....no.

For the rest of us, who aren't obsessed with the name of a band, or with hating a rock singer.....yes.

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

Edited September 17, 2011 by Groghan

[Bobbo]

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.

[WhazUp]

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...

Edited September 17, 2011 by WhazUp

[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

[moreblack]

As ridiculous as it is, the new band could put out 10 albums and sell 200 million copies with 25 number one hits

I'm gonna stop you right there.

[gnrfan2007]

GnR got thrown into the wasteland along time ago ... about the same time the "alternate rock" era began with Nirvana and Pearl Jam.

GnR is not in the mainstream conscious right now because of the music of OLD-GnR, not because any of thing NEW-GnR has put out.

If GnR wants to be in the spotlight again, all they have to do is put out a new POP-song that is indicative of the current era in mainstream music. A "Sweet Child" type of song.

Would that make you happy?

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?

[gnrfan2007]

Some folks are forgetting that it took AFD 3 years to catch on.

Some folks also seem to forget that OLD-GnR died when the "alternative era" exploded.

People in the mainstream don't care about GnR right now because of the music of OLD-GnR. They still associate GnR with OLD-GnR. And OLD-GnR is no longer "cool".

If Slash and Duff were still in GnR, GnR would not be where it is today because the music would suck as shown by the music put out by Slash and Duff's solo and VR bands.

It is *in-fact* NEW-GnR that has revived GnR - to allow GnR to continue to sell out concerts and sell over 3 MILLION copies of CD.

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...

[Nick85]

I think if Axl lets DJ "beef up" some of the unreleased Chinese Democracy era tracks, we'll have at least one or two hits on our hands.

[moreblack]

Some folks are forgetting that it took AFD 3 years to catch on.

Some folks also seem to forget that OLD-GnR died when the "alternative era" exploded.

People in the mainstream don't care about GnR right now because of the music of OLD-GnR. They still associate GnR with OLD-GnR. And OLD-GnR is no longer "cool".

so are these fine folks filling those South America venues only because of Chinese Democracy?

[WhazUp]

Some folks are forgetting that it took AFD 3 years to catch on.

Some folks also seem to forget that OLD-GnR died when the "alternative era" exploded.

People in the mainstream don't care about GnR right now because of the music of OLD-GnR. They still associate GnR with OLD-GnR. And OLD-GnR is no longer "cool".

If Slash and Duff were still in GnR, GnR would not be where it is today because the music would suck as shown by the music put out by Slash and Duff's solo and VR bands.

It is *in-fact* NEW-GnR that has revived GnR - to allow GnR to continue to sell out concerts and sell over 3 MILLION copies of CD.

There is absolutely NO way you can speculate on what the music would "would have" sounded like if the past was different, there is no way to say that it would suck. VR and solo projects are not the same as getting the respective people together to make music. VR is VR, the music they would have made with Axl if they continued would be something different because there would be different people (regardless of how many different people) creating and playing music.

People in the mainstream care about the HITS that GNR made and are constantly on the radio, which were made by the old lineup.

It is the old GNR success that has allowed GNR to continue to sell out concerts, without the hits they would not be successful in the first place. Everything stems from the success of the old lineups, in fact.

This isn't a jab at the new lineup, it is just fact. I love the new lineup and can't wait for them to start the US tour, but they are far from standing on their own

Edited September 17, 2011 by WhazUp

[Bobbo]

Some folks are forgetting that it took AFD 3 years to catch on.

Some folks also seem to forget that OLD-GnR died when the "alternative era" exploded.

People in the mainstream don't care about GnR right now because of the music of OLD-GnR. They still associate GnR with OLD-GnR. And OLD-GnR is no longer "cool".

If Slash and Duff were still in GnR, GnR would not be where it is today because the music would suck as shown by the music put out by Slash and Duff's solo and VR bands.

It is *in-fact* NEW-GnR that has revived GnR - to allow GnR to continue to sell out concerts and sell over 3 MILLION copies of CD.

There is absolutely NO way you can speculate on what the music would "would have" sounded like if the past was different, there is no way to say that it would suck. VR and solo projects are not the same as getting the respective people together to make music. VR is VR, the music they would have made with Axl if they continued would be something different because there would be different people (regardless of how many different people) creating and playing music.

People in the mainstream care about the HITS that GNR made and are constantly on the radio, which were made by the old lineup.

It is the old GNR success that has allowed GNR to continue to sell out concerts, without the hits they would not be successful in the first place. Everything stems from the success of the old lineups, in fact.

This isn't a jab at the new lineup, it is just fact. I love the new lineup and can't wait for them to start the US tour, but they are far from standing on their own

Again, +1

[Spirit]

Although many people insist on this, Axl didn't start a new band, he continued on with GN'R.

The new guys have only one album under their belt, and yes, considering the time passed, it's way too little.

Let's wait and see what happens, if this line-up gets out a couple more albums, the material is good... they will have accomplished a lot.

Still, the classic hits will get played in concert because it is GN'R, it's part of their history.

[Apollo]

No matter what, people will complain.

If GnR releases a new album this Christmas and the 2012 your consists of ONLY songs from CD and the new album, and no appetite or illusions songs are played.....the very same people that today complain the band is a cover band living off the past will start complaining that they no longer get to hear their old favorites.

GnR was playing up to 8 cd songs on the last tour. That's more than most bands play off of new albums.

GnR will play the old classics that Axl helped create. And that most fans want to hear. And with the release of any new albums, whenever that may be, new songs will be added to the shows. We, as fans, can sit back and enjoy the ride......or we can nitpick and over analyze everything to death.

[RussTCB]

@ "NuGuns"

Some of you really need to understand that it's not 1994 anymore. If YOU let them "stand on their own" they'll stand on their own. If not, enjoy the rest of the 90s, there's a big computer scare at the of the year followed by some GREAT Guns N' Roses activity in the early 00's

[Del Norte]

Some of you really need to understand that its not 2008 anymore. Three of the key musicians from cd are absent in this band including the two main guitarists and writers. We all want these guys to prove themselves in the studio. Losing bucket, robin, brain and it can be argued tobias makes this another band imo.

[Bobbo]

And by the end of the tour they played as little as four or five of their old songs. It's not that it has to be all or nothing when it comes to the old material, I get playing the hits for some of their act, but when most of your setlist is comprised by material written by another band, how is the casual fan to take this current incarnation seriously, and not just a cover band?

[Apollo]

@ "NuGuns"

Some of you really need to understand that it's not 1994 anymore. If YOU let them "stand on their own" they'll stand on their own. If not, enjoy the rest of the 90s, there's a big computer scare at the of the year followed by some GREAT Guns N' Roses activity in the early 00's

Great point. Some people are way too caught up in the name and who the members are. People that bashed guys like bucket and finck are now praising them as guitar gods.

Bottom line is that we all want to hear new music with Axl singing. The collection of musicians associated means more to those who just want to use it as a means to bash Axl. I don't care if it is Dj or robin, or buckethead or bumblefoot. And I don't think the majority of people really care either about the latest members, other than to use it as a negative against Axl for the revolving door of guitar players.

Do rhcp fans cry and moan as much as GnR fans do? I just read the rs story talking about all their band changes. I had no idea, and really don't care. The music produced is what I find interesting. Not the makeup of the band.

[Spirit]

And by the end of the tour they played as little as four or five of their old songs. It's not that it has to be all or nothing when it comes to the old material, I get playing the hits for some of their act, but when most of your setlist is comprised by material written by another band, how is the casual fan to take this current incarnation seriously, and not just a cover band?

There's the problem right?

You see this as another band, I see this as another line-up.

For more new songs to be played live, they have to release more albums... that's where we're at right now, but I believe this will change over time when more material sees the light of day.

For now, I think the setlist is fine based on what's come out post '93.

[Bobbo]

^^One has a lot to do with the other though. Who's playing in the band has to do with the music produced. I'm not saying it to be a dick, but it showed with Chinese Democracy, a lot of fan weren't taking to the music. It wasn't just because "Slash was gone".

rhcp is different. They had a pretty stable lineup, from a recording standpoint. A LOT of fans bitched when John left the second time. But there was no bad blood this time around, he just wanted to do different things. With GNR there was certainly a lot of bad blood, and a lot of...antics.

And spirit, either way you look at it, it was certainly a new era to say the least. Most fans, for better or worse look at the two lineups as separate. Axl and the gang began playing songs off CD in 2001, seven years before the actual album came out. Why can't they do that now? They've certainly have had enough time to come up with their own material.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Bobbo

[wasted]

I think with the sales of CD and successful tours they proved they can stand on own.

[Spirit]

And spirit, either way you look at it, it was certainly a new era to say the least. Most fans, for better or worse look at the two lineups as separate. Axl and the gang began playing songs off CD in 2001, seven years before the actual album came out. Why can't they do that now? They've certainly have had enough time to come up with their own material.

If you look at it as two completely separate bands, you will never accept this as GN'R and everything that comes with that - a lot of GN'R songs played in the live shows. The reason bands get popular would be because of their music, right? The biggest bands have most of their biggest hits from the early period of their existence, the songs that always will stay in their setlists during concerts. That doesn't mean you can't have bands producing very good music throughout their careers, but the songs that made them big will always be what defined them - they would have to be performed to please their paying audience. In GN'R's case these songs was made by a different line-up, but today it's still Guns N' Roses.

They've actually toured the album for the past two years, playing everything off it - focusing on the music from that CD, that's probably why they didn't play any other new stuff. What they've been doing in this recent tour is exactly what every other band are doing when they tour their latest release.

As to why they started already in 2001.. As you may or may not know, the album was actually slated for release the summer of that year. For some reason that did not happen, but from the band's point of view it would be logical to start introducing some new songs with the album so close to getting out. The situation is not the same today, the album is actually out, and they've been touring it.

For the concerts ahead of us now, I personally hope we're in a transition fase where the next one is not a long ways ahead of us - meaning they might start showcasing something brand new.