Rant

[Guns n' Swedes]

To you who created this thread: What is the problem? Just because somebody is young and wanna raise this new band to the skies...let them.

The old band did look very un-interested from 92 onwards.

This new band rocks and we need nobody telling us: "It will never be like the old band".

Wtf is the point with that? You can't compare a band to when they are in the 20's and 30', to when they are in their 40's.

Different thing now. Less drama, but they seem to enjoy it more and that makes for hell of a show.

[ironmt]

To you who created this thread: What is the problem? Just because somebody is young and wanna raise this new band to the skies...let them.

The old band did look very un-interested from 92 onwards.

This new band rocks and we need nobody telling us: "It will never be like the old band".

Wtf is the point with that? You can't compare a band to when they are in the 20's and 30', to when they are in their 40's.

Different thing now. Less drama, but they seem to enjoy it more and that makes for hell of a show.

When you learn to read, we will discuss It further. Thank you.

[Ace Nova]

I'm 35 and I have now seen both the new and the original versions of the band. I still have some reservations of even calling this version of the band Guns N' Roses, since Axl is the only original member but since seeing them live recently, I am willing to do so. The new version puts on a great show and they are technically sound. Axl sounds very good and I dig the new music.

That being said, the new version of the band just isn't really comparable to the original lineup. I'm not saying they are better or worse, they're just different bands in a different era. There is some things about the original lineup that can never be replaced - by neither the new band OR a reunion, in my opinion. I think a lot of fans wanting a reunion (myself included) are thinking that it will be Guns N' Roses of 1987-1991 all over again. Looking at it now, seeing the new incarnation of G N' R and all the projects (Velvet Revolver, Loaded, etc.) the other band members have done since, it would be safe to say that it most likely won't be the same.

The original lineup changed the face of music - they were the greatest rock band of their era, hands down. They were "kids" that had nothing to lose and all their music was based on their lives at the time. Would some of that emotion and sentiment come back if they were to reunite? I'm sure some would and I do think the AFD and UYI tunes would bring back memories that seem somewhat vacant when the new band plays. There's something about seeing Axl, Slash & Co. on the same stage, playing the music they wrote that the new lineup couldn't replicate, no matter how technically sound they are. Would it be the same as 1987-1991? No - but it would be much closer than it is now.

To summarize, the new lineup has put together some really good music and they put on a great shows but to compare them to the original band during that era just isn't fair. It would be like comparing a brand new Ferrari to a 1964 Ferrari GTO. The new Ferrari is faster, drives better and is much safer but the 1964 GTO is one of a kind, the best of its era and simply irreplaceable.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Kasanova King

[scottish nutter]

im 36, seen the band at gateshes in 92, then both nights at milton keynes in 93 with izzy, i then seen them in glasgow in 2006, for me the old line up was better, probably because it was slash standing right infront of us spitting big snottery groggers at the security axl sounded good at all the shows, but its only my opinion and i dont think axl sounds good at all these days, the stuff where he needs a growel in his voice doesnt sound good, its to high pitched and sounds forced, half these youtube videos are poor quality and mask how bad he sounds.

im to old and cant be fucked to argue with some 12 year old kid on here that loves his voice so dont even bother, if you like how he sounds these days then good for you

[Guest NewGNRnOldGNR]

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 don’t think we’re propaganda officers for New GN’R. I think most people opt to defend Axl because there’s a sincere love for his talent. New GN’R is worth defence.

I don’t think it’s an infallible support that warrants some form of intellectual debate regarding whether supporting New GN’R like a political tenure replaces some life absence.

I believe if anything the fashionable option is to slate GN’R post-1996; and as a result the fanbase has made a conscious adaption to that with open counter-ideas.

Unquestionably there are those whose infatuation with GN’R ties into a psychology; claims such as GN’R are the greatest out there are testament to a mental capacity.

New GN’R seems to attract insane people; and probably because the concept itself has an insane inclination. This is responsible for the YouTube efforts; those nutters who embrace Guns N’ Roses as a political, spiritual ideology rather than a catalyst for attractive musical output.

But that can’t detract from the fact that New GN’R, devoid of all the supremacy efforts, is worthwhile. & we aren’t arguing simply because it’s difficult to accept each incarnation of GN’R has been inferior to the last. I believe there is truthful contentment rather than a collective conspiracy of lies because Axl is the Dear Leader.

[Eu4ic]

The question "Who is better?" always turns into "Who I prefer more." People's subjective tastes (What I like) influence their idea of objective truth (Who is THE BEST). Just because you experienced the original lineup doesnt mean you can necessarily are a better judge than anyone else as to who's better.

And, the fact the original Gnr was a massive worldwide juggernaut in terms of pop success to me means nothing by itself. Justin Beaver is a huge pop star but nobody's claiming his 'music' is quality. Popularity can mean just a sign of the times. Sadly, this generation is fed shit by the powers-that-be, and they are such followers/sheeple that they tolerate it!

The fact Gnr was loved back in the day not only doesnt mean much - most of the great artists and albums arent initially loved by everyone - in fact you could argue the opposite! Most great shit is rejected during its own time and it takes a while to digest and people to get it. The fact there was a certain 'energy' at Gnr shows back in '89 absolutely does not mean that the band itself was better than the '11 lineup!

For the record, I love all eras of Gnr. I've spent so much time trying to decide which band is 'the best' or whatever that I know as well as anybody that my moods change and so do the times - ya just gotta stop worrying about these questions, enjoy the music and encourage those who are carrying the name GNR into the future and honoring its legacy!

[tingirl]

Im an oldie as well.The new lineup today is very good they play tight,Lots of eye candy not really young and kill live.I appreciate their music eventhough i cant buy a album with them all on it.

But for me I have to say that nothing compares to the old band and its not just because of the music it is so much more.Being a teenager when they broke onto the scene was amazing.Growing up in a life that was very close to the life Axl, experienced in a time when everything was hush,hush and kept in the family,we didnt have the support groups and social workers that are in place today,seeing the world through hypicritical eyes,Having someone on top saying"LOOK AT ME,HEAR ME,HOW DARE YOU TREAT ME THIS WAY,NO IM NOT GOING TO SHUT UP, IM NOT GOING AWAY,ITS TIME WE SPOKE OUR PEACE AND NOW YOU CANT HIDE"Was very liberating and drew a era of lost people together. They gave us a voice.Axl ranted onstage an off about everything it in a sense helped us concour or own demonds. The old band lived together, ate together, wrote together and experienced gutters and fame together. This cannot be replicated not even by him or a reunion.When they started to live lives apart,different tour buses, houses,hotel rooms etc they started drifting away.Axl stopped speaking but who could blame him it always bit him in the ass.Knowing this and always valuing my previous experience I for one am willing to accept the new line up at face value.You made us hear once Axl lets hear what you and your band mates now have to say.

[ironmt]

Highly original thread.

For the record, I like the new band better because I appreciate good musicians. I understand the appeal of a drug addicted, unpredictable band but I grew out of that. In all honesty I would rather go to the symphony or an opera than most rock shows.

Btw, I saw the original band in 1993. I personally can't see how anyone can say that they were better than the guys they have now. Sloppy playing and out of pitch backing vocals may be appealing to some, but not as much to me. It seems that people like that sort of thing.

Old GNR is Twinkle Twinkle Little Star. It's still a good song, but I've grown up.

At least you haven't grown up enough to have stopped listening to and liking the new Guns, anyway, being that you have seen both era's of the band and have come to the conclusion that the new version Is better, that's great, that's your right and your opinion.

[Nosaj Thing]

I'm 35 and I have now seen both the new and the original versions of the band. I still have some reservations of even calling this version of the band Guns N' Roses, since Axl is the only original member but since seeing them live recently, I am willing to do so. The new version puts on a great show and they are technically sound. Axl sounds very good and I dig the new music.

That being said, the new version of the band just isn't really comparable to the original lineup. I'm not saying they are better or worse, they're just different bands in a different era. There is some things about the original lineup that can never be replaced - by neither the new band OR a reunion, in my opinion. I think a lot of fans wanting a reunion (myself included) are thinking that it will be Guns N' Roses of 1987-1991 all over again. Looking at it now, seeing the new incarnation of G N' R and all the projects (Velvet Revolver, Loaded, etc.) the other band members have done since, it would be safe to say that it most likely won't be the same.

The original lineup changed the face of music - they were the greatest rock band of their era, hands down. They were "kids" that had nothing to lose and all their music was based on their lives at the time. Would some of that emotion and sentiment come back if they were to reunite? I'm sure some would and I do think the AFD and UYI tunes would bring back memories that seem somewhat vacant when the new band plays. There's something about seeing Axl, Slash & Co. on the same stage, playing the music they wrote that the new lineup couldn't replicate, no matter how technically sound they are. Would it be the same as 1987-1991? No - but it would be much closer than it is now.

To summarize, the new lineup has put together some really good music and they put on a great shows but to compare them to the original band during that era just isn't fair. It would be like comparing a brand new Ferrari to a 1964 Ferrari GTO. The new Ferrari is faster, drives better and is much safer but the 1964 GTO is one of a kind, the best of its era and simply irreplaceable.

This. You sum it up pretty well. I couldn't agree more with you. 5 stars.