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

[Del Norte]

Easy. Because Duff Izzy and slash quit the old band. And have went on to new things. They are not stuck and Hung up on a band they were in 15 years ago....neither am I.

And wtf. I guess the old songs mean more to me than they do to you. Why in the world would anything Axl does now effect how I feel about the old songs? Nothing axl does now changes estranged coma or scom.

You and a couple others are so obsessed with the legacy. Why, it isnt your legacy or your career or your life. Again, slash Duff and Izzy have moved past it, but u can't? You are more upset than duff......that's weird.

We will just have to agree to disagree. For me GnR is the song. For you, its their legacy. Music touches my soul and it doesnt matter who made it, the name of the band, how popular that band is, what that bands legacy is. those things are important to you. Whatever floats your boat.

I was simply replying to your points "I don't care who is in the band, it's about the music to me" and "how come people care more than the people involved?". Both of which I see you, a good poster, continually bringing up so I answered the questions you had. I'm sure you'll continue asking these though even though the answer is pretty obvious.

Why would anything Axl does now effect how I feel about the old songs? I don't know, it doesn't. I didn't say that. The legacy thing is the big picture. In the future when you look at GNR once they're done instead of seeing them as this band that tore shit up for like 6 years and crash and burned rock and roll style it will be viewed as this long drawn out thing that ended in a very very different place from where it started. That's not the main aspect of the band, but it's certainly second. The old songs will not be tarnished in the slightest. Also, your point about Duff not being upset. Obviously it's not his focus in life and he doesn't want to come across as bitter so at this point he realizes it's never going to happen again and speaks to that effect. I don't see how you know he doesn't care deep down based off a few public words about it. I'd say he does care about GNR and that's why he got back with Slash and Matt to try and do the whole GNR type thing again. Velvet REVOLVER? Come on, they obviously still care about Guns.

For me GNR is the song, the legacy which I think you have a different view on that word than I do. Legacy as I said is the big picture, which you obviously view (you being everyone).

EDIT: That last post by Groghan is such a condescending misinterpreted view. You cannot differentiate the legacy between the old band and the new band as they have the same name. Legacy means the opinion of the band by the majority of people, or majority of fans. Now, this legacy for the fans, is now divided and keeps growing more and more divided as some see the legacy getting tarnished (which means people's opinion of the band, aside from what happened in the past, change). Fans against fans. That sucks, and that's about it. It sucks but it doesn't effect my view of the music. Thankfully, I never think of Ashba while listening to The Garden.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Del Norte

[Bobbo]

We will just have to agree to disagree.

can't see you doing that.

But you"can" see the people doing that that agree with you, right? Funny how that works.

Again -

It's a shame that some of you regulars on here don't feel strongly enough about the old music and the old band as people like volcano, sailway and others do.

For me, the old music/band will live on FOREVER. Their legacy will always be strong. Nothing will ever change how epic of a band they were.

But for some of you (bobbo, star, moreblack, norte, sunny, etc), anything Axl does now can change or ruin the old band's legacy. Shame that you guys don't think the legacy or the mark they left on music is that strong.

I look forward to seeing what the current band does. It will only add/subtract to my feeling of the CURRENT line-up. Nothing will ever change what the old band created. Sadly, what a group of "hired hands" does in 2011 will have an effect on the staying power and legacy of what your favorite band did in 1988.

I mean this sincerely, from the bottom of my heart. Even though we debate a lot on here and disagree a lot. I really hope the current group puts out 2-3 amazing albums, so your "legacy" of the old band will not be ruined for you. Old GnR music is so amazing, that I really hope you guys are able to "enjoy" it forever, share it with your friends and your children. I've got a 3-month old, and when he starts listening to music, I will slowly introduce him to GnR. Regardless of what the current band does - my love for the old songs will never change.

I wish you guys had that sort of love for the old band/songs. Hopefully the new band will put out good enough music to allow the old band/music to stay relevant to your future music listening.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Did you read my previous post? Or whazup's post? He made some GREAT points.

The old music will never die out. People years and years from now will always remember guns n roses for jungle, brownstone, sweet child, my michelle, nightrain, paradise city, you could be mine, don't cry, november rain, you could be mine, their live and let die and knockin covers, estranged, civil war, etc. And ALL the members that contributed to them. Their legacy is set in stone. That's what this thread is all about. The nu guys are just living off those songs and playing under the name guns n roses to keep relevant, despite being a band twice as long. That's what puts a bad taste in peoples mouths.

I honestly can't tell if you're turning this into something it's not on purpose, or if you just don't get that...

Edited September 23, 2011 by Bobbo

[Apollo]

Bobbo....I'm just strictly talking about the legacy thing now. Wassup made some great points.

Specifically about the legacy. You guys are just really worried about the bands legacy. I'm just stating that I love the old band and music so much, that NOTHING will ever change their legacy for me. You guys are constantly complaining that the new band is ruining the legacy that the old guys created.

You guys started this "ruining the legacy" thing, not us.

[classicrawker]

Bobbo....I'm just strictly talking about the legacy thing now. Wassup made some great points.

Specifically about the legacy. You guys are just really worried about the bands legacy. I'm just stating that I love the old band and music so much, that NOTHING will ever change their legacy for me. You guys are constantly complaining that the new band is ruining the legacy that the old guys created.

You guys started this "ruining the legacy" thing, not us.

"You guys" and "us"? who exactly are the "you guys" and the "us guys"?

[Bobbo]

Bobbo....I'm just strictly talking about the legacy thing now. Wassup made some great points.

Specifically about the legacy. You guys are just really worried about the bands legacy. I'm just stating that I love the old band and music so much, that NOTHING will ever change their legacy for me. You guys are constantly complaining that the new band is ruining the legacy that the old guys created.

You guys started this "ruining the legacy" thing, not us.

It's sad (honestly sad), but true that the vast majority of fans, casual and hardcore, aren't happy with the way Guns is run now. Sure a lot of fans are still happy to see Axl and hear him live again, but the rest of the band is just seen as "hired hands" who just cover for the old dudes. I guess "ruining" the old guy's legacy was a bit much...but it did come to a premature halt, and for what? 10 years of nostalgia by guys who contributed little to nothing. It's not helping people take "Guns N Roses" as it stands now as a serious act. It's caused a lot of serious fans to turn their backs on the band and leave a bad taste in their mouth when they think of GNR. To many, it's just a straight up joke. And I guess in that way, it does kinda "tarnish" the legacy the old guys worked so hard to build. I'm kinda somewhere in the middle, and I think if Axl got his shit together, they could possibly pack a serious punch.

If these guys had put out even 2 or 3 albums at this point, and had even maybe three or four rock radio hits by now, maybe a brighter picture would've been painted. I still don't agree with them continuing as "Guns N Roses", I probably never will, but I think people would ease up on them a little bit if they had more to show as their own band. But they haven't. Not to say it will never happen, but not at the rate they're going.

[volcano62]

Bobbo....I'm just strictly talking about the legacy thing now. Wassup made some great points.

Specifically about the legacy. You guys are just really worried about the bands legacy. I'm just stating that I love the old band and music so much, that NOTHING will ever change their legacy for me. You guys are constantly complaining that the new band is ruining the legacy that the old guys created.

You guys started this "ruining the legacy" thing, not us.

It's sad (honestly sad), but true that the vast majority of fans, casual and hardcore, aren't happy with the way Guns is run now. Sure a lot of fans are still happy to see Axl and hear him live again, but the rest of the band is just seen as "hired hands" who just cover for the old dudes. I guess "ruining" the old guy's legacy was a bit much...but it did come to a premature halt, and for what? 10 years of nostalgia by guys who contributed little to nothing. It's not helping people take "Guns N Roses" as it stands now as a serious act. It's caused a lot of serious fans to turn their backs on the band and leave a bad taste in their mouth when they think of GNR. To many, it's just a straight up joke. And I guess in that way, it does kinda "tarnish" the legacy the old guys worked so hard to build. I'm kinda somewhere in the middle, and I think if Axl got his shit together, they could possibly pack a serious punch.

If these guys had put out even 2 or 3 albums at this point, and had even maybe three or four rock radio hits by now, maybe a brighter picture would've been painted. I still don't agree with them continuing as "Guns N Roses", I probably never will, but I think people would ease up on them a little bit if they had more to show as their own band. But they haven't. Not to say it will never happen, but not at the rate they're going.

Just buy a fuckin' ticket and go see Guns N' Roses and you'll see everyone has a blast. Stop wasting your time worrying about things nobody gives a shit about.

[Johnny Drama]

For me in order for Nu Guns to be the great band they are/WERE on Chinese Democracy they needed to do three things:

1. Frequent releases.

2. Be Axl's actual side project away from GN'R a la Snakepit.

3. Maintain the line-up of Axl, Buckethead, Finck, Tommy, Brain and Pitman. No one else to come in or leave.

[axlrod]

Bobbo....I'm just strictly talking about the legacy thing now. Wassup made some great points.

Specifically about the legacy. You guys are just really worried about the bands legacy. I'm just stating that I love the old band and music so much, that NOTHING will ever change their legacy for me. You guys are constantly complaining that the new band is ruining the legacy that the old guys created.

You guys started this "ruining the legacy" thing, not us.

It's sad (honestly sad), but true that the vast majority of fans, casual and hardcore, aren't happy with the way Guns is run now. Sure a lot of fans are still happy to see Axl and hear him live again, but the rest of the band is just seen as "hired hands" who just cover for the old dudes. I guess "ruining" the old guy's legacy was a bit much...but it did come to a premature halt, and for what? 10 years of nostalgia by guys who contributed little to nothing. It's not helping people take "Guns N Roses" as it stands now as a serious act. It's caused a lot of serious fans to turn their backs on the band and leave a bad taste in their mouth when they think of GNR. To many, it's just a straight up joke. And I guess in that way, it does kinda "tarnish" the legacy the old guys worked so hard to build. I'm kinda somewhere in the middle, and I think if Axl got his shit together, they could possibly pack a serious punch.

If these guys had put out even 2 or 3 albums at this point, and had even maybe three or four rock radio hits by now, maybe a brighter picture would've been painted. I still don't agree with them continuing as "Guns N Roses", I probably never will, but I think people would ease up on them a little bit if they had more to show as their own band. But they haven't. Not to say it will never happen, but not at the rate they're going.

Just buy a fuckin' ticket and go see Guns N' Roses and you'll see everyone has a blast. Stop wasting your time worrying about things nobody gives a shit about.

I went to a music store to buy Nu Guns album but they said there's only one Guns N' Roses and their latest album is Chinese Democracy.

I'm searching Nu Guns over the internet and there's only Guns N' Roses as original name, but I've found Guns 2 Roses they're Nu Guns and they're good.

[wasted]

Legacy of Nostalgia.

Distinguished by relics.

[Roy_GNR]

They are a band that can stand on their own, because they are GUNS N' ROSES.

[ITW 2012]

They are the band that forgot time.

[wasted]

I wonder if Axl gets a lot of watches for Christmas.

[Snowmass]

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.

TRUE. Therefore Nu Guns can stand on their own. Some folks blind to see such facts!

Regardless of who replacements are, Axl knows better to lead his band.

Can you really/truly call it a 'band'? Isn't a band when everyone kind of decides things/has an influence? Setlist, writing, free to do (honest) interviews etc...?

Please enlighten us on the inside world of Guns N' Roses then...

Does this sound like a 'band' to you?

Via RS-Might another record be in the works? "I'm not a liberty to talk about that," Stinson says. "I don't get into that aspect. That's Axl's business."

[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.

TRUE. Therefore Nu Guns can stand on their own. Some folks blind to see such facts!

Regardless of who replacements are, Axl knows better to lead his band.

Can you really/truly call it a 'band'? Isn't a band when everyone kind of decides things/has an influence? Setlist, writing, free to do (honest) interviews etc...?

Please enlighten us on the inside world of Guns N' Roses then...

Does this sound like a 'band' to you?

Via RS-Might another record be in the works? "I'm not a liberty to talk about that," Stinson says. "I don't get into that aspect. That's Axl's business."

Translation: axl has not given me permission to take off my muzzle =-p.

In all seriousness, all the "band" members should be on the same page as to what the future holds for them, besides the nostalgia shows.

[Spirit]

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.

TRUE. Therefore Nu Guns can stand on their own. Some folks blind to see such facts!

Regardless of who replacements are, Axl knows better to lead his band.

Can you really/truly call it a 'band'? Isn't a band when everyone kind of decides things/has an influence? Setlist, writing, free to do (honest) interviews etc...?

Please enlighten us on the inside world of Guns N' Roses then...

Does this sound like a 'band' to you?

Via RS-Might another record be in the works? "I'm not a liberty to talk about that," Stinson says. "I don't get into that aspect. That's Axl's business."

Translation: axl has not given me permission to take off my muzzle =-p.

In all seriousness, all the "band" members should be on the same page as to what the future holds for them, besides the nostalgia shows.

The line in the interview can be interpreted in many ways. Tommy could be talking about the business side of things concerning getting a new album out there, about the process of getting an album out in the stores. I think we all know by now that Axl is in charge, that won't change. Why people are so upset about it, I honestly don't know. As long as they're touring and putting out new music (yeah, I know, only one album), shouldn't that be good enough for us? I don't feel the urge to know details about how the relations are inside the band, they seem to be real good friends, great!

"They're not a band!!"

- No? They seemed like a damn good rock n roll band to me when I saw them live last year.

"A band makes all decisions together, both musically and commercially!!"

- Not all bands. Is this an ordinary rock band? Did this line-up come together after meeting eachother in a club or after putting out ads in the paper? No, Axl has explained all this before.

Do you honestly believe Tommy wouldn't be involved in the writing and recording of new songs? He's General Tommy Stinson. Is he involved in the business side of things? I doubt it.

Also, for everyone saying the new guys are just hired hands, bossed around by almighty Axl... Does Tommy seem like the kind of guy who would put up with something like that? He has told it like it is in interviews before, he's not afraid to "hurt" Axl. I put that in quotation marks because some people on the boards seem to think Axl can't handle a little critisism. Well Tommy's still around, so I don't think Axl's as fragile as people make him out to be.

Bottom line, the music is what matters. Here I agree with many of the critics, more music please. Does this band stand on its own? To many it does. To many it will never, no matter what. Can't please everyone.

[Bobbo]

Where has tommy "told it like it is"? As for why he would put up with it, what is tommy gonna do that pays as good as gnr? Don't get me wrong, cause I actually really like stinson. He was really the only member of nu guns I've actually heard of before hand, and I actually thought he was a very logical replacement for duff. But I mean "it's a great job" because all you really gotta do is get together here and there and do a quick cash and grab. A big one that tommy wouldn't get otherwise. Not even with the replacements. And he barely has to lift a finger.

As for the "band" actually being a band, that's arguable at best. Axl should let his employees in on things a little bit more, at least to the point to where they know where they stand as a band. I think, at the very least, axl wants to at least layer ashba and bumble, and whoever else into the new album. So I personally don't think they're ready to put out an album as is at this point. As for having involvement in the writing process, yeah maybe, but if axl doesn't like something that tommy does, and tommy doesn't like a way that axl sings a certain verse, axl couldn't give two shits, and it would stay. That's not a "band", that's "my way or the highway". The fact that tommys not aware of what goes on in his own "band" is sad. And while your explainations could be possible, I don't think they're likely imho. I think tommy just goes with the flow, collects his checks, and earns his money for a kick ass show while playing a cash n grab.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Bobbo

[Spirit]

Where has tommy "told it like it is"?

There's a recent interview. He was talking about differences between him and each of the frontmen in the bands he's been in.

As for why he would put up with it, what is tommy gonna do that pays as good as gnr? Don't get me wrong, cause I actually really like stinson. He was really the only member of nu guns I've actually heard of before hand, and I actually thought he was a very logical replacement for duff. But I mean "it's a great job" because all you really gotta do is get together here and there and do a quick cash and grab. A big one that tommy wouldn't get otherwise. Not even with the replacements. And he barely has to lift a finger.

Tommy doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who gets bossed around and puts up with it.

if axl doesn't like something that tommy does, and tommy doesn't like a way that axl sings a certain verse, axl couldn't give two shits, and it would stay. That's not a "band", that's "my way or the highway". The fact that tommys not aware of what goes on in his own "band" is sad..

All this is just assumptions. Please don't tell me "it's obvious"..

[Kill Devil Hill]

Where has tommy "told it like it is"?

There's a recent interview. He was talking about differences between him and each of the frontmen in the bands he's been in.

Link? I haven't read many Stinson interviews, and this one sounds interesting.

Oh, and I agree with your entire post, although I understand why one would think this "band" doesn't operate as a real band.

[Spirit]

Where has tommy "told it like it is"?

There's a recent interview. He was talking about differences between him and each of the frontmen in the bands he's been in.

Link? I haven't read many Stinson interviews, and this one sounds interesting.

Oh, and I agree with your entire post, although I understand why one would think this "band" doesn't operate as a real band.

Sorry, didn't find it when I was writing the post.

Found it now..

http://www.bigtakeover.com/profiles/tommy-stinson-s-fire-and-brim-stone

[Bobbo]

Id hardly call that interview "being fearless of critcising axl".

What I was saying wasn't really "assumptions" when it comes to the bigger picture. What axl says is what goes. He's at the head of the throne.

As for being a guy that doesn't get tossed around, just an opinion. Mine is that I think he realizes that gnr is the biggest gig, in terms of "ca ching" he'll probably ever get, so might as well roll with the punches.

[Spirit]

What I was saying wasn't really "assumptions" when it comes to the bigger picture. What axl says is what goes. He's at the head of the throne.

But you weren't talking about the bigger picture, were you? You gave a very specific situation.

Axl's the boss, yes. Does he micro manage? I don't think so.

[classicrawker]

Axl's the boss, yes. Does he micro manage? I don't think so.

Your kidding right? these guys can't say shit about NuGuns..I would say that is micromanaging............

[Bobbo]

Axl's the boss, yes. Does he micro manage? I don't think so.

Your kidding right? these guys can't say shit about NuGuns..I would say that is micromanaging............

+1

[Spirit]

Axl's the boss, yes. Does he micro manage? I don't think so.

Your kidding right? these guys can't say shit about NuGuns..I would say that is micromanaging............

What are you talking about? They've done lots of stuff throughout the years.

Have they ever given any dates (I'm assuming that's what you're refering to)? No. -- Doesn't mean they "can't say shit".. We've gotten backstories to the writing process; live stream from rehearsal; given info that they are working on new songs; tour video diaries from both Tommy and Dj..

I don't know... you must be more specific, cuz they've said and shown lots about GN'R.

[Bobbo]

Just basic shit. Nothing that really gives anything away. Unless there's a surprise at Rio, we know the set list is gonna contain the songs they've played at rehearsal already. Tommy blaming the record company for the delay of Chinese Democracy isn't something that I would think upset Axl too much. It's really never anything too specific, and not really anything past what we already know. It always seems like they have to get the "go ahead" from Axl before they give anything too juicy away. Things the fans are really interested in knowing. It seems like they can never talk about the going ons in the band that some of them have been participating in for a decade without permission. It's usually always the generic answer. "Yeah we hope...", "Yeah there's been talk..." "Yeah we've been writing a little bit...", etc. Usually nothing specific.

Do I have solid proof that there's a "gag order" in place? No. But actions speak louder than words...

Edited September 25, 2011 by Bobbo