Georgy Zhukov Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 People seem to forget that Slash has been happy about Axl carrying on the Guns N' Roses name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 It's the perfect time to offer the olive branch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 True they inducted GNR. Not GNR minus CD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnR Chris Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Well, I don't feel Sorum should be inducted either, or Dizzy. But as others have argued, they recorded on Illusions. They were part of the juggernaut in its peak. You can't say that about Tommy or any of the other guys in the current lineup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uzi your illusion Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 (edited) We could probably settle this if we could look back on past inductees and see if there are any with as many line up changes as Guns. Then see who the Hall of Fame actually gave awards out to. I mean I doubt that there going to have 20 plaques and give them out to every single past/present member. Edited December 8, 2011 by uzi your illusion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knife-Chase Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 People seem to forget that Slash has been happy about Axl carrying on the Guns N' Roses name.source?All I know is he was pissed when it first happened, said it was a HUGE mistake to give Axl the rights (because Axl continued with the name), and is probably pissed the old band can't reunite every so often and play some shows, he also said what Axl is doing is sacrilege. Please don't spread misinformation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volcano62 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I definitely understand where you are coming from regarding the current band and the HOF and I agree that the new guys do at least deserve an honorable mentionThis is what i'm talking about? Who is the new guys?? For example Tommy has been there longer than any of the classic AFD lineup.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Drama Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I definitely understand where you are coming from regarding the current band and the HOF and I agree that the new guys do at least deserve an honorable mentionThis is what i'm talking about? Who is the new guys?? For example Tommy has been there longer than any of the classic AFD lineup....Axl... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 i havent follow the hof much over the years, iv been reading articles that are saying "Guns N' Roses have become the first and only group to be inducted into the Hall of Fame on their first year of eligibility" is this true? I know enough to know that if any have done this it has not been many that get nominated on their first year of eligibility and for that matter picked to go in, so if this is true this is even more epic.U2 was inducted first time up. Boy came out in 1980, but had put singles out in '79, so they were eligible. Just had to have something recorded, even if it was only available in the UK. Pretenders were also inducted first time up, and people had said in their case, it was because the bands that had the most success for Seymour Stein (anyone on Sire Records) were pushed to the front. The Cure made the list this year, and they were distributed by Sire in the US, recorded on Fiction everywhere else. Another band where there's a question of who would go up, or would Robert just go up by himself? But also keep in mind The 'Mats recorded for Sire, as did Madonna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Drama Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 i havent follow the hof much over the years, iv been reading articles that are saying "Guns N' Roses have become the first and only group to be inducted into the Hall of Fame on their first year of eligibility" is this true? I know enough to know that if any have done this it has not been many that get nominated on their first year of eligibility and for that matter picked to go in, so if this is true this is even more epic.U2 was inducted first time up. Boy came out in 1980, but had put singles out in '79, so they were eligible. Just had to have something recorded, even if it was only available in the UK. Then why wasn't GNR eligible for the 2011 Hall of Fame? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhazUp Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I definitely understand where you are coming from regarding the current band and the HOF and I agree that the new guys do at least deserve an honorable mentionThis is what i'm talking about? Who is the new guys?? For example Tommy has been there longer than any of the classic AFD lineup....The "new band" here is widely considered to be the post 1996 lineups Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volcano62 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I definitely understand where you are coming from regarding the current band and the HOF and I agree that the new guys do at least deserve an honorable mentionThis is what i'm talking about? Who is the new guys?? For example Tommy has been there longer than any of the classic AFD lineup....The "new band" here is widely considered to be the post 1996 lineups15-16 years later that doesn't seem "new" to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 15-16 years later that doesn't seem "new" to me.but it is, lotta ppl still don't know who the new band Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhazUp Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I definitely understand where you are coming from regarding the current band and the HOF and I agree that the new guys do at least deserve an honorable mentionThis is what i'm talking about? Who is the new guys?? For example Tommy has been there longer than any of the classic AFD lineup....The "new band" here is widely considered to be the post 1996 lineups15-16 years later that doesn't seem "new" to me.Its "new' meaning these lineups came after the time of the critical success and considered by the general public to be the definitive era of GNR (not trying to take away from the post 96 band cause I love em to death but it is what it is) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volcano62 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I definitely understand where you are coming from regarding the current band and the HOF and I agree that the new guys do at least deserve an honorable mentionThis is what i'm talking about? Who is the new guys?? For example Tommy has been there longer than any of the classic AFD lineup....The "new band" here is widely considered to be the post 1996 lineups15-16 years later that doesn't seem "new" to me.Its "new' meaning these lineups came after the time of the critical success and considered by the general public to be the definitive era of GNR (not trying to take away from the post 96 band cause I love em to death but it is what it is)Sorta like how Bryan Johnson is still the "new" guy in AC/DC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim_Rome Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I'm still "new" because I stay FRESH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhazUp Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Actually Brian Johnson was able to something that was fucking incredible which was being able to give AC/DC an even bigger period of critical success which is almost impossible to do when you replace the singer. Massive props to him for that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXL_N_DIZZY Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 For me:Old Guns- everyone up to Slash departure in late Fall '96 (officially).Guns: everyone from 1997 on...*Some guys (i.e. Axl, Dizzy, Paul, Duff and Matt) are actually members/former members of BOTH IMHO (though Duff and Matt are much more associated with Old Guns obviously)...No "new guys" or "new band" or nu-GN'R or the "Old "band", etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 People seem to forget that Slash has been happy about Axl carrying on the Guns N' Roses name.source?All I know is he was pissed when it first happened, said it was a HUGE mistake to give Axl the rights (because Axl continued with the name), and is probably pissed the old band can't reunite every so often and play some shows, he also said what Axl is doing is sacrilege. Please don't spread misinformation.The past members of GNR have a "what's done is done" attitude about it. But the fact is that bands get most of their income from touring and publishing, licensing something out isn't a steady thing, but in the case of Glee, Axl and Slash had to come to an agreement on not letting them use the songs. If Axl wants to reissue something, he doesn't have to run it by them, but I'm sure his manager would make them aware of what he's planning if it has to do with archive stuff. He doesn't want that boardroom shit that Paul and Yoko have done for decades, even though lately, they're just leaving it up to Apple Records to handle things. I knew things changed because I started hearing Beatles songs (that weren't cover songs) in movies, which is about as often as hearing a Led Zeppelin song in a movie.They might not speak directly to each other, but they're still in each others lives. Everyone in GNR will always be referred to as "a member of Guns N' Roses", no matter which lineup it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXL_N_DIZZY Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Actually- one of the problems I have with the "new band" label is that if anything it makes me think much more about the Finck/Bucket/Brain line-up/era than anything else...I just think with the album out, the road dog touring to rave reviews they've benn doing all over the globe for a couple years now, successful return of "Estranged" and "Civil War" to the set list, and just the more straight up RnR vibe DJ and Frank bring to the table, etc. they've really earned the right to be called "Guns". Frankly, after having seen the Orlando show a month or so back... I wouldn't dream of calling them anything else (and I love and respect Old Guns like crazy)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volcano62 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Actually- one of the problems I have with the "new band" label is that if anything it makes me think much more about the Finck/Bucket/Brain line-up/era than anything else...I just think with the album out, the road dog touring to rave reviews they've benn doing all over the globe for a couple years now, successful return of "Estranged" and "Civil War" to the set list, and just the more straight up RnR vibe DJ and Frank bring to the table, etc. they've really earned the right to be called "Guns". Frankly, after having seen the Orlando show a month or so back... I wouldn't dream of calling them anything else (and I love and respect Old Guns like crazy)...+1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Archer Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I definitely understand where you are coming from regarding the current band and the HOF and I agree that the new guys do at least deserve an honorable mentionThis is what i'm talking about? Who is the new guys?? For example Tommy has been there longer than any of the classic AFD lineup....The "new band" here is widely considered to be the post 1996 lineups15-16 years later that doesn't seem "new" to me.Its "new' meaning these lineups came after the time of the critical success and considered by the general public to be the definitive era of GNR (not trying to take away from the post 96 band cause I love em to death but it is what it is)Sorta like how Bryan Johnson is still the "new" guy in AC/DC? Good one. Brian Johnson has been the "new" guy in AC/DC for 31 years. There was only one Bon Scott but Brian has been and is legitimately the frontman of AC/DC (and I say this despite favoring Bon over Brian). However, there are a lot of fanatic Bon-era loonies who say "it's not the same", AC/DC is no longer AC/DC without Bon etcetera, etcetera. They are very similar to some of our fellow forum members and Appetite era fans at large. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNRfan2008 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 (edited) However, there are a lot of fanatic Bon-era loonies who say "it's not the same", AC/DC is no longer AC/DC without Bon etcetera, etcetera. They are very similar to some of our fellow forum members and Appetite era fans at large.I call BS on that comparison. Johnson's contributions to Back In Black automatically make him a more legit member than the guys in Axl's current version of GN'R. Back in Black is the most successful AC/DC album by a long shot. Chinese Democracy is a flop compared to AFD, Lies, and UYI. And it's a gigantic flop when you consider the $15m cost to produce it. Edited December 8, 2011 by GNRfan2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Archer Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Actually Brian Johnson was able to something that was fucking incredible which was being able to give AC/DC an even bigger period of critical success which is almost impossible to do when you replace the singer. Massive props to him for thatHmmm, he was also lucky to be the right person to walk in at the right moment, right when AC/DC were just exploding. Powerage and Highway to Hell are my favorite AC/DC albums of all time - IMO, better than Black in Black or anything else afterwards. Brian still can't do the Bon era songs that well (some performances of DDDDC , WLR and HTH blow you out of the water though)But, does that make those later albums or any of Brian's time fronting the band, just shit? Oh, no. Definitely not. It's just that they were the products of different lineups and different singers, but great all the same. Most fans accepted changing times and changing realities with AC/DC.Sadly, that will never happen with many people from the GNR fanbase.Will you ever catch a Slash fan praising the beautiful music on Chinese Democracy? No.Will you ever hear them praise the amazing skill of the new line up and how well they play the old material? No.Will you hear them praise ex-Gunners teaming up with mediocre singers, who pale in comparison to Axl, to cover GNR songs? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 i havent follow the hof much over the years, iv been reading articles that are saying "Guns N' Roses have become the first and only group to be inducted into the Hall of Fame on their first year of eligibility" is this true? I know enough to know that if any have done this it has not been many that get nominated on their first year of eligibility and for that matter picked to go in, so if this is true this is even more epic.U2 was inducted first time up. Boy came out in 1980, but had put singles out in '79, so they were eligible. Just had to have something recorded, even if it was only available in the UK. Then why wasn't GNR eligible for the 2011 Hall of Fame?LLAS came out at the end of '86, so they wouldn't have been able to be inducted this year. Had GNR only put AFD out, they would have had to wait until 2013 because it was out in July. It has to be by the time they do the award ceremony to have something out for 25 years. In U2's case, they hadn't even had "Boy" out or "I Will Follow" out for 25 years the year they were inducted, but because they had regional singles, were able to get in. Had LLAS been released the beginning of '86, then they would've been inducted this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.