Rant

[chevelle]

Big Smashing Pumpkins fan here. Most of their fans say Mellon Collie..is their best work, but I adore Adore.

19 here. It's true that I never experienced the old band in person, but I think watching videos DOES let you get a good enough idea of what any performance was like. It may lack the feeling of actually being "there", but it doesn't really sound vastly different. It's not as if, by the miracle of being there, you get to hear enhanced HD tracks only granted to concert goers. That said, as much as I love the new guys, I do think the old band had a bit more unpredictability and rawness - certain bits of the new band's show do lean a bit towards "predictable rock n' roll", but they do play exceptionally well and deliver every night.

What makes me most interested in the new line up of this band is the music. Slash is still making the same music he always did, bluesy rock, and he's good at it, but I don't think GN'R could have evolved sonically much if he stayed in the band. Oh My God, Shackler's, Better, Prostitute, and Madagascar are songs that probably wouldn't have worked in the context of the old band. It's really quite disappointing that they've only released one single and an album in the 15 years since Slash left the band, because I really do love the heavier, electronic, more experimental vision of Guns Axl had in his head.

[Nosaj Thing]

It's not really a comparison it's like different eras of GNR.

Exactly.

[SoulMonster]

I am just curious as to the average age of the board members(35 here, probably classified as an old fuck). It seems to me that there Is alot of recent posts reiterating how much better the current band Is, as opposed to the original band. The most confusing part of the whole situation Is that most of these members making these claims probably weren't around or were to young to have even seen the original band, so how do you compare the original and new version when you weren't around. Watching videos or youtube Is one thing, but as anyone that has been there live will tell you, It's just not the same, not even close. In all fairness , If you have seen the original and the new version and you come to the conclusion that the new band Is better, than that's great, you are entitled to your opinion, but for all those making the claim that the new band Is better without ever experianceing the original, well that leaves me more than a little confused.

36 here. It's hard to compare the old with the new. The music is much better now and the shows longer, the old band was sloppy (not as good musicians under influences) and the sound was often sparse and simple. But the old band delivered more exciting concerts because back then everything wasn't choreographed down to the smallest movement, the shows were unpredictable, and there was this sense of danger all the time. Another thing is back then there was anger, aggression and danger. Not much of that lately -- for better and for worse.

Thank you for the Intellegent response and giving your opinion. I have to respectfully disagree and have a different opinion when It comes to the music being much better now. I believe that Appetite and both Illusion albums are far superior to Chinese Democracy. There are a few good songs on the new album, just not enough for me to say that Is's better than the bands previous material.

Hehe, I see I misunderstood your original question, I thought you asked about the live concerts, not the released music. Slightly embarrassed now.

My original reply was a reflection on the live concerts which today's lineup and the AFD lineup did.

When it comes to released music I very much prefer AFD and UYI to CD. The combination of the song writing skills of Izzy, Axl and Duff just created songs that to me are magic. And combined with the sonic textures created by the rhythm section and Slash's melodic and iconic solos songs were made which will always be my favourites. The song qualities on CD are just not high enough (TWAT and Better being exceptions), and I don't necessarily like how the musicians have added parts to the songs. It is slightly messy and lacks an overall theme. It's hard to describe. I do think the songs come more into their own during the live concerts though. Perhaps they would have benefited from less studio work? Fewer people involved? But most of all, they would have benefited from being written by better song-smiths. So to conclude: I definitely prefer the old material to CD, although CD has some good songs. I hope the CURRENT lineup will be able to write a record that is more coherent and with better songs.

[shotgunblues1978]

Point you're missing is that the comparisons are mostly between the current band and what the old lineup would be like TODAY. Comparing the 1988 lineup in 1988 to the 2011 lineup in 2011 is pretty pointless; the only comparison worth anything is what some variant of the old lineup would be like today compared to the current

A reunion would not have the raw energy or excitement that the old lineup had back in the day. It would be forced and purely motivated by financial gain. So when you take that into account it's not the stretch that a lot of the reunionists claim that it is. At some point you have to get over the fact that the old lineup is not reuniting and even if it did, it wouldn't be close to the same just because of who's on stage; the "magic" would be long gone, that much is nearly guaranteed

[Georgy Zhukov]

Age doesn't really have to do with it. If you talk to the average teenage GN'R fan, he probably hasn't even heard ChD because "it's not real Guns N' Roses." I've faced struggles trying to turn younger people on to new Guns, far more struggles than I get when I want to show them an old Guns song.

I actually think younger people are less receptive to new Guns because, in my observations, younger people weren't around to build a strong enough bond with Axl to get past the media crucifixion he went through. You know what I mean? Like, when the media talks trash about someone who you don't have any sort of attachment to, you just accept it because you don't care enough to argue against it. And since younger people weren't around when GN'R imploded, they just accept everything at face value. It's just an accepted truth that new Guns is a poser band, and Axl stole the name, etc.

But I guess I'm just generalizing a casual or a less than casual younger fan. The same could be said about older fans, I guess, but I think it would be to a lesser extent.

You're finding a lot of people on here saying the new band is great because they're hardcore fans. Not saying you aren't, but I think you'll find fan forums are more "accepting" of the music of a band they support. Guns N' Roses fans are more accepting of ChD than any other fan site. Some people who are old enough to see GN'R in their heyday may not have become hardcore fans until ChD. I know there are a handful of users on this forum following the band solely for Bumblefoot, so of course they'd prefer the new band to the old band.

Or maybe people prefer the old band, but accept that the new band is "better" live, because technically they are. Personally, I prefer the danger factor, the unpredictability of an old GN'R gig, but I think it's pretty factual this band is better, tighter. In terms of technical skill and execution, they're lightyears ahead of the old band. But people who prefer the old band see a magic, a specialness about it unmatched by anyone. I see it, too, so I understand it.

Actually, just take a look at our most vocal posters. Volcano and Sailaway are both a lot older than Bobbo, yet they always argue that new is better than old, while Bobbo defends the old band like his life depends on it.

I can see why you would think younger people prefer the newer band, though. Generally, it's easier for a younger person to change his opinion than an older one, so perhaps new Guns can convert a younger person easier than an older one. But I don't think it ha to do with being "old enough to appreciate" the old band. Albums like AFD are timeless, and they have a special appeal to younger people.

So while I just wrote a long paragraph about why younger people would prefer the older band, I sincerely doubt age matters when it comes to preference toward the old or the new band. It's just down to musical taste and maybe open-mindedness.

Sometimes I forget you are one of the younger members of the forum. You are one of the wisest people on this forum. Wasted takes the cake for being the wisest though.

When I was 15 I got into Guns N' Roses and thought the whole thing with Axl carrying on the GNR name was stupid, now I am turning 24 in two weeks and I prefer the new band. I will always love the old band, even purchased Live Era so I can bask in their glory, but the new band is my Guns N' Roses now.

[Kalervo]

Point you're missing is that the comparisons are mostly between the current band and what the old lineup would be like TODAY. Comparing the 1988 lineup in 1988 to the 2011 lineup in 2011 is pretty pointless; the only comparison worth anything is what some variant of the old lineup would be like today compared to the current

A reunion would not have the raw energy or excitement that the old lineup had back in the day. It would be forced and purely motivated by financial gain. So when you take that into account it's not the stretch that a lot of the reunionists claim that it is. At some point you have to get over the fact that the old lineup is not reuniting and even if it did, it wouldn't be close to the same just because of who's on stage; the "magic" would be long gone, that much is nearly guaranteed

+1

[sweetness]

I'm 21 and I certainly do not believe that is the case. The new band is good, but the old band were legends, a perfect storm of musicians who came together by chance to create fierce rock n roll music. I just don't see how a revolving door of hand picked session musicians is more appealing... they do what they do, and that's great, but anybody saying they're better is just caught up in the hype. Honestly, finding guys who are more than capable of playing songs that were written 20 years ago should be no problem at all, especially given the huge reputation of the brand name. That these guys can play the crap out of these songs is not all that impressive, because they really aren't that hard songs to play... but only a handful of people can be credited for writing them, and that's what counts in my book.

My friend who lives down the street is a way more technically advanced guitar player than Slash, but why would that mean I would rather have him play lead guitar for GNR than Slash? It just doesn't make sense to me, not one bit.

[Georgy Zhukov]

I'm 21 and I certainly do not believe that is the case. The new band is good, but the old band were legends, a perfect storm of musicians who came together by chance to create fierce rock n roll music. I just don't see how a revolving door of hand picked session musicians is more appealing... they do what they do, and that's great, but anybody saying they're better is just caught up in the hype. Honestly, finding guys who are more than capable of playing songs that were written 20 years ago should be no problem at all, especially given the huge reputation of the brand name. That these guys can play the crap out of these songs is not all that impressive, because they really aren't that hard songs to play... but only a handful of people can be credited for writing them, and that's what counts in my book.

My friend who lives down the street is a way more technically advanced guitar player than Slash, but why would that mean I would rather have him play lead guitar for GNR than Slash? It just doesn't make sense to me, not one bit.

What hype though? The majority of fans expressed disinterest in the new band.

The problem is that only the new material has the more technically advanced material for someone like Bumblefoot to play, unfortunatly we are not hearing most of those songs.

[sweetness]

I'm 21 and I certainly do not believe that is the case. The new band is good, but the old band were legends, a perfect storm of musicians who came together by chance to create fierce rock n roll music. I just don't see how a revolving door of hand picked session musicians is more appealing... they do what they do, and that's great, but anybody saying they're better is just caught up in the hype. Honestly, finding guys who are more than capable of playing songs that were written 20 years ago should be no problem at all, especially given the huge reputation of the brand name. That these guys can play the crap out of these songs is not all that impressive, because they really aren't that hard songs to play... but only a handful of people can be credited for writing them, and that's what counts in my book.

My friend who lives down the street is a way more technically advanced guitar player than Slash, but why would that mean I would rather have him play lead guitar for GNR than Slash? It just doesn't make sense to me, not one bit.

What hype though? The majority of fans expressed disinterest in the new band.

The problem is that only the new material has the more technically advanced material for someone like Bumblefoot to play, unfortunatly we are not hearing most of those songs.

Maybe "excitement from the show" would have been a better word choice

[GnRDuff1]

I just love the "element of danger and excitement" argument for old band lovers/new band haters. You really fucking think that as the guys joined Axl in the "I'm not a raging alcoholic/junkie club" that the anger and everything would have stayed? FUCK NO! Velvet Revolver had just as little energy as GnR do right now. And those were the guys who had a shot at still being in the best live act in the world today. But to say that this band is boring because they're not as energetic is a stupid thing to say. No 50 year old sober person with a semi-realistic view of reality is going to have the same anger inside them as a 20 something/early 30 something drug addict. Just not going to happen

Edit: +1 Shotgunblues1978. Even if they had stayed togehter, your point is one of the most valid in this thread.

Edited December 23, 2011 by GnRDuff1

[Flayer]

18. Love Chinese Democracy, love the old band, but it's a little bit apples and oranges to compare.

[montrealrocks]

39 here. I saw ALL the incarnation of GnR. I saw them in 1987, 1988, 1991, 2006 and 2010.

Band is WAY fucking better than before!

[iwillleaveaxlalone]

23 here.

Just don't see how its a comparison. AFD and UYI were true classic albums the helped define their era. CD is just a mess in comparison and in a lesser league. Yes, the current band hits the notes more consistently and a bit heavier, but the groove and passion seems to have been lost somewhere along the road. The old band consistently put out great music, even if not in large amounts. Everything was golden. CD just has the ugly, modern industrial sound to it. Just can't stand it. The AFD lineup had a much stricter root in rhythm and blues and put far more emphasis on melody than the current band. Great examples are the outros to Rocket Queen and Locomotive. Very powerful emotion in those songs without all the wankery which just ruins the moment for me.

Thats all my personal opinion and I respect everyone's own to like whichever lineup. Just don't see how you can go from Jungle, PC, Nightrain, etc etc to songs like Prostitute, Sorry, and Shacklers. Feels like they dropped off the cliff in an imaginative sense.

Either way, I don't think you have to be in the moment know which band is better to you. I've seen the new band once and absolutely loved it. That being said, I still prefer the old band based on youtube videos alone. People can like the new band better as well without ever seeing them in person. Just a matter of taste.

agree 100%

[ironmt]

I am just curious as to the average age of the board members(35 here, probably classified as an old fuck). It seems to me that there Is alot of recent posts reiterating how much better the current band Is, as opposed to the original band. The most confusing part of the whole situation Is that most of these members making these claims probably weren't around or were to young to have even seen the original band, so how do you compare the original and new version when you weren't around. Watching videos or youtube Is one thing, but as anyone that has been there live will tell you, It's just not the same, not even close. In all fairness , If you have seen the original and the new version and you come to the conclusion that the new band Is better, than that's great, you are entitled to your opinion, but for all those making the claim that the new band Is better without ever experianceing the original, well that leaves me more than a little confused.

25 here, whatever that info is worth.

I may not have been a fan during their hayday, but these days it's very easy to find a lot of decent bootlegs from the old days.

So while I may not have seen the old band live, I've seen or listened hundreds of their shows. So I think I have a pretty good idea of what old Guns was at the time, to the fans and to the band.

I saw the new band in 2006 for the first time, but I was a fan of the new Guns well before that. I've seen the band a total of 5 times. So how many times you believe I should've seen the old Guns live to say I "get" the old Guns and that I "was" there? Once? Twice? Five times? 100 times? Man, I think your logic fails a bit.

Logic doesn't fail at all. It gets a little old listening to a bunch of young people that weren't even thought about when the band was In there prime, telling the generation that was actually there,how much better the new band are and how much better the new band plays the original bands songs. From what I have seen on this tour and In my opinion, the new band are great, probably the best live act out there, but who are you, and others like you, to criticize a band you weren't even around to see. This whole,I watched a bootleg so I am qualified to come to the conclusion that I have come to, Is ridiculous. If you seen the band live In 2006 as you say you have, than I think we can both agree on the fact that a bootleg Is nothing like actually being there.

[shotgunblues1978]

I am just curious as to the average age of the board members(35 here, probably classified as an old fuck). It seems to me that there Is alot of recent posts reiterating how much better the current band Is, as opposed to the original band. The most confusing part of the whole situation Is that most of these members making these claims probably weren't around or were to young to have even seen the original band, so how do you compare the original and new version when you weren't around. Watching videos or youtube Is one thing, but as anyone that has been there live will tell you, It's just not the same, not even close. In all fairness , If you have seen the original and the new version and you come to the conclusion that the new band Is better, than that's great, you are entitled to your opinion, but for all those making the claim that the new band Is better without ever experianceing the original, well that leaves me more than a little confused.

25 here, whatever that info is worth.

I may not have been a fan during their hayday, but these days it's very easy to find a lot of decent bootlegs from the old days.

So while I may not have seen the old band live, I've seen or listened hundreds of their shows. So I think I have a pretty good idea of what old Guns was at the time, to the fans and to the band.

I saw the new band in 2006 for the first time, but I was a fan of the new Guns well before that. I've seen the band a total of 5 times. So how many times you believe I should've seen the old Guns live to say I "get" the old Guns and that I "was" there? Once? Twice? Five times? 100 times? Man, I think your logic fails a bit.

Logic doesn't fail at all. It gets a little old listening to a bunch of young people that weren't even thought about when the band was In there prime, telling the generation that was actually there,how much better the new band are and how much better the new band plays the original bands songs. From what I have seen on this tour and In my opinion, the new band are great, probably the best live act out there, but who are you, and others like you, to criticize a band you weren't even around to see. This whole,I watched a bootleg so I am qualified to come to the conclusion that I have come to, Is ridiculous. If you seen the band live In 2006 as you say you have, than I think we can both agree on the fact that a bootleg Is nothing like actually being there.

Again, there aren't many people claiming or debating that the current band is better than the 1988 band in 1988, or the 1991 band in 1991, or any other pointless argument

To reiterate my point from this thread and another recent one:

-Any reunion outside of a one off for a charity or the RRHOF would be borderline embarrassing, as the motivations would be completely transparent ("let's put aside our personal differences so we can make as much money as humanly possible!"); Axl has made it abundantly clear that he does not want to work with Slash again, and that he did not enjoy the latter days of the old lineup on very many levels. So what motivation could he possibly have to play with them again other than money?

-The old lineup (1988, 1991, 1993 or any other old era lineup) would not be even close to as good now as they were then in terms of the intangibles (the raw energy, passion, excitement, etc.). The magic is long gone; these are guys who are 45-50 years old, rich, and have not worked together in roughly 15 years because they could not co-exist on a personal or professional level.

-Objectively, the new band DOES play the songs better if you judge it objectively just in terms of sound. I've seen GNR on the UYI tour and on each of the "nu Guns" US tours and the 2011 version has a combination of explosiveness/energy and technical precision that sets it apart from any previous iteration (again, judging objectively, and on the sound, technique, tightness, production, etc.).

I know that the reunionists think that if Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy were all on stage together, the magic would be reborn. I don't see how anyone can logically say that with a straight face when it would just be rich middle aged rockers trying to cash in. It would not be happening for passion, artistic reasons, or the general desire to work together; it would be all about the money. Axl is so clearly enjoying himself more with this group of guys than he ever did with the old band past early AFD days. Thus there is no need for a reunion. It such a transparent/blatant cash grab that it would almost be shameful.

[w6a6x6l6]

Seen both. Like both.

Love the new tunes, love the old tunes...

Hating on either is childish and wont bring Lineup X back.

That being said, kinda pisses me off that Bucket and Rob are gone.

Cover band of a cover band. Band needs to stand on their own merit.

Release new music...

well isnt "red panda" really cd2 ? if they are to stand on there own merit it won't be by that.

kinda makes your signature make you look like a hypocrite.

just saying

[Chimera]

I never understood how people in the GN'R community could not want, or at the very least - enjoy seeing a reunion. Even if it's one song at some event. I wonder how many of these Nu GNR diehards would pay full ticket price to see just Chinese Democracy era songs.

Food for thought.

[MarlaHooch]

28 here, been a fan since I was 12.

They're different but equally good in my opinion for different reasons.

Original lineup purists, in my opinion, like to think that somehow they would still be as raw, dangerous, and explosive at 50 as they were in their 20s when they were all poor nutty junkies. It reminds me a lot of in politics when, say, Obama is matched up in an election poll with a hypothetical "generic Republican". Phrased that way, he sometimes trails. When he's pitted against a republican who is named, and that person's baggage and shortcomings are added in, you see a much different result.

My point? Slash cannot write classic songs anymore. He hasn't written a classic song in 20 years. Decent songs, maybe. Classic? No. Purists discount that. Steven Adler probably cannot hold that swinging groove together these days the way he did in 1988. Sure he's still a good player, but I dunno if that "spark" would necessarily be there. When you ask someone if a reunion would be cool, they're not thinking about these guys as they are now. They're thinking of their idealized, romanticized version from 20-25 years ago that hasn't existed since.

You also have these "original lineup purists" who for some reason consider Matt Sorum and Gilby Clarke to somehow be more relevant/part of the original band than any of the current members who were brought in the same exact way and have been in the band significantly longer/some of whom even have writing credits unlike those two.

The new band is as good as you're gonna get other than this mythicized concept of an original lineup that never lost a step. If the original lineup reunited and they indeed turned out to be as blistering as they were 25 years ago, that'd be amazing. But that's not how it works. That's not how it works for any band.

A reunion will be amazing (not would, will, because it's inevitable), but in the meantime, I think the current lineup is the most badass band in rock n' roll right now. The Foo Fighters come close but I think the GN'R guys win as far as showmanship, solos, etc. Muse fake a good chunk of their live show, Kings Of Leon are not exactly "dangerous", RHCP lost their main creative force...I just can't think of any other iconic rock band that is playing new material and kicking as much ass as this version of GN'R has been this year.

[bumblecool]

I never understood how people in the GN'R community could not want, or at the very least - enjoy seeing a reunion. Even if it's one song at some event. I wonder how many of these Nu GNR diehards would pay full ticket price to see just Chinese Democracy era songs.

Food for thought.

Nice first post.

Second account?

[GnRDuff1]

I never understood how people in the GN'R community could not want, or at the very least - enjoy seeing a reunion. Even if it's one song at some event. I wonder how many of these Nu GNR diehards would pay full ticket price to see just Chinese Democracy era songs.

Food for thought.

I know I would. Would I prefer some old stuff? Yeah. Rocket Queen and some deep tracks. Mostly because I'm paying $100 for a pit ticket, I want a long show. Especially with the endurance I know the band has. I would also pay $100 to se any incarnation of this band play any combination of songs. I love the new stuff, and the old band wouldn't (maybe couldn't?) play it. If there were 2 new albums, so I could get what I feel is a full show, I would definitely pay the same amount. The lyrics are better now than ever. I get off from the emotion given in the lyrics, and Axl believes every word he sings from CD. You can feel it.

[HowlinWolf]

I'm 21 and I certainly do not believe that is the case. The new band is good, but the old band were legends, a perfect storm of musicians who came together by chance to create fierce rock n roll music. I just don't see how a revolving door of hand picked session musicians is more appealing... they do what they do, and that's great, but anybody saying they're better is just caught up in the hype. Honestly, finding guys who are more than capable of playing songs that were written 20 years ago should be no problem at all, especially given the huge reputation of the brand name. That these guys can play the crap out of these songs is not all that impressive, because they really aren't that hard songs to play... but only a handful of people can be credited for writing them, and that's what counts in my book.

My friend who lives down the street is a way more technically advanced guitar player than Slash, but why would that mean I would rather have him play lead guitar for GNR than Slash? It just doesn't make sense to me, not one bit.

Great post

[GnRDuff1]

I'm 21 and I certainly do not believe that is the case. The new band is good, but the old band were legends, a perfect storm of musicians who came together by chance to create fierce rock n roll music. I just don't see how a revolving door of hand picked session musicians is more appealing... they do what they do, and that's great, but anybody saying they're better is just caught up in the hype. Honestly, finding guys who are more than capable of playing songs that were written 20 years ago should be no problem at all, especially given the huge reputation of the brand name. That these guys can play the crap out of these songs is not all that impressive, because they really aren't that hard songs to play... but only a handful of people can be credited for writing them, and that's what counts in my book.

My friend who lives down the street is a way more technically advanced guitar player than Slash, but why would that mean I would rather have him play lead guitar for GNR than Slash? It just doesn't make sense to me, not one bit.

Great post

That post nailed it. The funny thing is, any revolving door session musician they bring gets clung to. It's sickening. It doesn't matter who it is, they are always the best GNR has ever had and the people who were in the band before (and were the best) are soon forgotten. Say any different and you are:

1. A cupcake

2. A hater

3. Banned.

Nope. I still think Bucket is the best guitar player they've had. Best does not equal favorite.

[Estranged Reality]

what happens with gn'r - or, more specifically, axl - is that because of the history, fans go out of their way more than usual to really stick up for him or support him. you don't get that with most other bands, because frankly, most other bands don't have the history that gn'r does.

sunny mentioned smashing pumpkins. even there, billy was kind of always the most popular figure associated with the group, and when iha and co. left he quickly publicized subsequent lineups and toured with them, did tv appearances, photo shoots, etc. ditto for bands like queens of the stone age, who at first received backlash for changing lineups, but here's what's different: they didn't wait as long before touring/putting out more music, they gave new bandmembers public recognition and pretty much just moved on quickly enough that people didn't have time to sit there and whine too long.

axl waited the better part of a decade to really get his ass into gear with the new lineup, and that left a lot of time for people to get upset over the band's dissolution. also, axl and slash were like mick and keith, i.e. both were very huge - and in the years of axl's silence, slash got the media attention, so people are today probably more familiar with his name than axl's.

what this leaves you with are fans on forums like this who really, really go out of their way to support axl, because they feel like they have to. you just don't get that with other bands. that's why any time i click on a "new gn'r" video i see comments like, "this lineup is better than the old lineup!" or "axl's voice is better than ever!" i've never seen people comment on a lead singer's voice as much as people do about axl, and why? because most of the public flak he gets - apart from being the perception of him being an asshole - is about how bad his voice was in 2002, which like it or not is the peak of his "pop culture" recognition since his comeback. that was when he showed up at the vmas after years of silence and the american public first saw/heard from him. and he's done tours since then and made a couple tv appearances but that's sort of the most iconic moment associated with 'nugnr' and unfortunately it was probably one of the weakest performances he's ever given. so the fans here who have kept up to date with the group over the years feel like they have to, like, fight off that image.

it's like the online community that remains attached to axl feel a need to really go out of their way to not only support, but almost advertise that he's better, the band is better, etc., and frankly i'm not sure all of them really believe it. i like the new band a lot but to say it's better? i think a lot of fans just really love axl and are sick of him getting shit, so they go out of their way to spit hyperbolic statements about both he and the new lineup. maybe i'm just a cold-hearted cynic like neal page but i doubt everyone leaving those youtube comments and posting such messages on fan forums 100% believe everything they say. they just love axl a lot and know that by posting hyperbole it'll have more of an impact, and maybe they'll convince themselves that it's true.

i know that's not exactly what you were getting at with your OP but it's just something i've noticed over the years, and i've never seen it happen with any other bands/singers. even bands with shake history: i never click a smashing pumpkins performance from 2011 and see a comment like, "billy's voice is stronger than it was in '94!" with 150 thumbs-ups. it's just always interested me how fiercely protective of axl some fans are, and how sensitive they are about stuff the media picked up on in '02: his voice, his weight, his style, the band. those are the four most popular topics for people to praise these days! ("axl looks great! sounds great! the band is tighter than ever! thank god the jerseys are gone!")

i was in the same boat at one time back around '05 or so - i was really, really into the new lineup and because my friends used to always mock the new band it was almost like i felt a need to go out of my way to praise the new group, even though - looking back now - as solid as it is, nothing will ever really top the original band...even if they reunited today.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Estranged Reality

[RandallFlagg]

Guns N' Roses 1987 was a moment in time, Guns N' Roses 1992 was another moment in time, Guns N' Roses 2001 was another moment in time, Guns N' Roses 2011 is another moment in time, they're all awesome, they're all different incarnations of Guns N' Roses fronted by Axl Rose's vision and backed up by incredible musicians, this line up is perhaps the best live show the world has ever seen, we'll see where they stand when an album is brewed, I personally think another classic line up is on the cards if they are let loose inside the studio, so much goddamn potential.

[YOUCOULDBEMINE.]

Ok.