Would anybody else like to see Slash, Duff, Stevie and whoever else tour playing GNR songs this Summer?

[Izzyslash]

Just watched performance videos of the HoF and as I sat there watching it, I found myself thinking "So this is what GNR would be like had Slash/Duff/Steven got the rights to the band name. They would be like The Doors are without Jim Morrison. Nothing special, and pretty forgetable"

The HOF is an excellent example of why Axl Rose IS Guns N' Roses. You can replace anyone else that's ever been in the band. You can't replace Axl. Like Billie Joe said, He's a bad ass fucking singer, one of the best frontmen to ever touch a microphone. With a vocal range that goes from a quiet whisper to a powerhouse, until he is screaming bloody murder.

Unlike Myles who reminds me and has about as much stage presence as Scott Stapp.

Gottal laugh. Even though it will never be GNR without Axl, the band just showed once and for all at HOF, the the same goes without them. They sounded so much better than the current band that it isn't even funny.

Not at all. Couldn't disagree with you more. The current guns are so much better musicians than the old line up it's not even funny. Thal can play anything Slash can, Slash can't play anything Thal can. I'd say it's a push with Duff and Tommy. I'm not going to argue any of the guitarists over Izzy. Frank is so superior to Adler's playing it's not even funny. New GNR has WAYYYYY more energy than the snooze fest that took place at the HoF.

Well, not saying they aren't good musicians at all, cause technically they are, at least Bumble. But again, Michael Angelo Batio plays tens times faster than Bumble, and is even more skilled... would he make GNR better then in your opinion? Lets put him, Steve Vai and John Petrucci on guitar, Billy Sheehan on bass, Mike Portnoy on drums and Rick Wakeman on keys.. By your arguements that would make a much better GNR than the current

None of the new guys play LIKE Slash, even though they can learn his songs and solos. I can do that, but it doesn't mean I play like him or as good as him. There is a ton of better unknown musicians on youtube than the guys in guns as well, the exeption being Bumble maybe, cause he is extremely good technically. Wonder why they don't just take the spots of every musician in a known band that ain't so schooled on they're intrument? Well... it's kinda obvious ain't it?

Discussing music with people like you doesn't make any sense, cause it's obvious that you have no idea of what you are talking about.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Izzyslash

[luvaxl4ever]

Just watched performance videos of the HoF and as I sat there watching it, I found myself thinking "So this is what GNR would be like had Slash/Duff/Steven got the rights to the band name. They would be like The Doors are without Jim Morrison. Nothing special, and pretty forgetable"

The HOF is an excellent example of why Axl Rose IS Guns N' Roses. You can replace anyone else that's ever been in the band. You can't replace Axl. Like Billie Joe said, He's a bad ass fucking singer, one of the best frontmen to ever touch a microphone. With a vocal range that goes from a quiet whisper to a powerhouse, until he is screaming bloody murder.

Unlike Myles who reminds me and has about as much stage presence as Scott Stapp.

Gottal laugh. Even though it will never be GNR without Axl, the band just showed once and for all at HOF, the the same goes without them. They sounded so much better than the current band that it isn't even funny.

Not at all. Couldn't disagree with you more. The current guns are so much better musicians than the old line up it's not even funny. Thal can play anything Slash can, Slash can't play anything Thal can. I'd say it's a push with Duff and Tommy. I'm not going to argue any of the guitarists over Izzy. Frank is so superior to Adler's playing it's not even funny. New GNR has WAYYYYY more energy than the snooze fest that took place at the HoF.

Then why is Chinese Democracy pretty much terrible save for a couple songs, but Appetite is one of the greatest albums EVER?

Slash on a technical level may not be the greatest, but no one pours his heart and soul into the music like him. That's what sets him apart. When these guys have solos like the ones in SCOM, November Rain, etc, then maybe they'll be in Slash's league. But they still won't be GNR.

[brobot]

I'd definitely go. I don't think Izzy would tour, but I think it would be great if they recorded together and could see Izzy being involved in that side of things. Overall not that likely, but I think there's much more a chance of this happening than Axl releasing any new music, aside from a few leaks of partial songs that could be floating around.

[vaida]

Slash, Duff, Stevie and whoever else tour playing GNR songs this Summer?

I don't think so..

The whole HOF event brought closure to Guns N'Roses as we knew them. It ended on a happy note.

Slash has a great solo career, Adler has his thing. Duff and Izzy are busy, although not as busy has Slash and Adler, and lest not forget Axl, who's hired a bunch of people to see his vision through. He chooses to call it Guns N'Roses, but we all know it isn't, but that don't matter. Its all good. Just so long as everyone is happy.

[DirtyDeeds]

The Snakepit albums were tons better guitar albums than Chinese. I mean, the guitar sounds mostly fine on CD, save a couple spots (I still think Robin blows, always will, sorry), but it only sounds fine, not awesome. The Snakepit albums did not have great lyrics, they had mediocre singing, mediocre drums (but so did CD), and the song structures were pretty standard and some of the songs themselves weren't great, but the guitar sound on them was orgasmic. The tone and feel and raunchiness of the guitar is what makes Slash irreplaceable.

[SoulMonster]

It is a cheap copy. It's like a Louis Vuitton bag (sorry for the bag reference, but it's what i know! ). I can certainly get a copy that looks and feels like the real deal, but at the end of the day the craftmanship isn't what it would be if it were authentic.

You are being confused by the fact that there are somthing called copy products where they are actually passed off as the real product they seek to imitate. But there is no fake Guns N' Roses trying to pass off as Guns N' Roses. To correct your analogy what we have today is Louis Vuitton starting to manufacture a new type of bag and lots of hysteric bag-users claiming these bags are not real Louis Vuitton bags. But of course they are. Not necessarily of equal quality as the ones before, or not necessarily living up to these nostalgic bag users idea of what a Louis Vuitton bag should be like. it could in fact be that the new bags are better than the old ones,some bagfans could still dream of something out of pure affection and nostalgia and reject the new and improved bags.

So if I were somehow able to trick Axl into legally forfeiting the rights to the name Guns n' Roses over into my legal possession, you know, like giving me the title to a used car since that's such a great analogy, then when my friends and I grab our guitars and drums and such and start a lousy version of "Welcome to the Jungle," then we would indeed be Guns n' Roses?

Yes.

Fucking sweet. I'm gonna get right to work on that law degree. I could cash in on this big time. Never knew rock fans were so attuned to legalities. I could totally exploit that.

I don't think rock fans are so attuned to legalities of branding and naming. If they were we wouldn't have all these stupid fans claiming today's Guns N' Roses "isn't really Guns N' Roses" or "the real Guns N' Roses" and other silly statements.

As a side note, my favorite lineup of the Beatles was Michael Jackson.

As a side note, I am afraid you are confused between ownbership of a band name and the resulting right to release music under that name, and ownership of discography and the resulting right to license out that music for financial gain.

[ohmygod]

No. If i wanna watch Guns N Roses songs played live, i'll go to a Guns N Roses show.

[Tomek1985]

I'd go.

+1

[SoulMonster]

A band is more than just the name they throw on marquee. My GNR wrote afd, gnr lies, uyi 1&2....whereas half of your band is missing from its only record....a mediocre one at that.

My band? I don't play in a band. Are you perhaps confused about the difference between "a lineup" and "a band", and are hence trying to say that "your" lineups wrote AFD and UYI whereas "my" lineup only wrote CD? If so, nah-nah! And no, I don't have my own lineup, I don't get that emotionally attached to lineups (anymore) to call them mine; besides, if you'd paid attention you'd know that I prefer the AFD lineup to today's lineup. But this preference doesn't make me blind for linguistics and logics.

Edited April 16, 2012 by SoulMonster

[brobot]

I've been to many a GNR show, but I'd prefer to see the songs performed by as many as possible of the artists that originally wrote and/or recorded these songs. That's why I'd be interested in this tour. As many times as I've seen the new version of the band, and enjoyed it each time, I'm getting less interested in seeing it again unless there are some changes. New songs, old songs they haven't been playing, an interesting line-up change, etc. I don't see any of that happening, which is why the prospect of the HOF line-up plus Izzy or Gilby and maybe a different singer, is more appealing to me.

[Original GNR]

A band is more than just the name they throw on marquee. My GNR wrote afd, gnr lies, uyi 1&2....whereas half of your band is missing from its only record....a mediocre one at that.

My band? I don't play in a band. Are you perhaps confused about the difference between "a lineup" and "a band", and are hence trying to say that "your" lineups wrote AFD and UYI whereas "my" lineup only wrote CD? If so, nah-nah! And no, I don't have my own lineup, I don't get that emotionally attached to lineups (anymore) to call them mine; besides, if you'd paid attention you'd know that I prefer the AFD lineup to today's lineup. But this preference doesn't make me blind for linguistics and logics.

I don't think some of us are ever going to agree with you SoulMonster, so it's best if we just agree to disagree. To a lot of people a band is more than who legally owns the name or what current members are in it. With a band such as GnR when everything about their sound, image, style and legacy is embodied in a particular time and a particular group of people, it becomes more than just the technicalities of a particular lineup. In music, a band to a lot of people is about the people in it who defined the sound, wrote the songs, created the music. Those guys back from '85 to '93 LIVED it. They started out as a bunch of street urchins, formed a band, played gig after gig in dirty dives and small clubs, lived together in a 10x12 storage unit, they built up the fan base piece by piece, wrote the songs together, got their record contract together. They started off playing to 10 people together and then ended up playing to 100,000 people together.

The lyrics, sound, style, attitude on the songs on Appetite and Illusions reflected the lives each of those band members lived. It was the soundtrack of their collective and individual experiences.

Yes, the current guys who tour with Axl are all gifted musicians, but they can't ever reflect the same attitude, intensity and passion for those songs because they aren't the ones who lived it. They don't have any personal or emotional connection to those songs.

Axl has every right to tour with whoever he wants and to play old Guns songs, just as Slash does. But to most people, neither Slash playing old Guns songs with his band or Axl playing old Guns songs with his band will ever be Guns N Roses for the very reasons I have mentioned.

[Nosaj Thing]

Slash + Duff + Adler/Matt is more GnR for sure than Axl n'friends...

There's nothing "more or less" Guns N' Roses, Guns N' Roses doesn't come in different sizes, either it IS Guns N' Roses or it ISN'T . Slash, Duff and Steven playing would comprise 60 % of the AFD lineup but 0 % of Guns N' Roses. Whatever lineup featuring Axl under the Guns N' Roses name is 100 % Guns N' Roses.

Nope. The name doesn't make Axl Rose = Guns N' Roses. He kept the name, but the name wasn't shit in 1986 until they got signed, until they got famous, until 5 to 7 guys wrote material together. They didn't get signed because Geffen said "oh, look! There's a band called Guns N' Roses, what a cool name!". I couldn't care less about the name. If the band would have been named "1, 2, 3" that band would have written from "Welcome To The Jungle" to "Estranged" and that featured Axl Rose, Slash, Duff Mckagan, Izzy Stradlin, Steven Adler, Matt Sorum, Dizzy Reed.

The band that is touring right now is "CALLED" Gn'R because Axl owns the name and it became HIS band after the other guys quit or got fired. The "real thing" is not the current band, uhm... is the real thing for you? That's a different story and it's cool!

Edited April 16, 2012 by pi2loc

[RocketQueenGNR]

No. I don't want to hear the (old) sound of Guns N' Roses without Axl's voice.

[SoulMonster]

Yeah, I guess you will never agree with what I am saying "Original GNR", despite my best efforts . So let's turn it around: what if you now argue for why you prefer to use the band name when you are talkning about a specific incarnation of Guns N' Roses, about a specific lineup, about a specific era/year of Guns N' Roses, all of which are linguistically more correct and infinitely more precise leaving less room for misunderstanding? Because in communication we all want to be understood right? Saying "the 1998 version of Guns N' Roses" or "AFD version" or even "classic GNR" rather than the fuzzy "real Guns N' Roses" is certainly much more precise and less confusing, right?

With a band such as GnR when everything about their sound, image, style and legacy is embodied in a particular time and a particular group of people, it becomes more than just the technicalities of a particular lineup.

But this is not right at all. You are talking about the lineups from '85 to '93, as you say later, and these lineups consisted of lots of people (Axl, Izzy, Rob, Tracii, Ole, Slash, Duff, Steven, Matt, Gilby and Teddy), playing music with very different sounds (listen to early GN'R, like on the G side of Lies, and compare with the most complex songs off UYI GN'R), with extremely different styles (from glam metal and punk rock to generic rock outfits later and whatever Axl decided to wear). You see, what you are talking about is NOT a homogenic thing at all. It is silly to label all of this under one moniker, whether that be a band name, a specific lineup or short time frame. The only way you can precisely refer to this is be referring to a broad time period, like "I prefer Guns N' Roses in the period 1985 to 1993".

In music, a band to a lot of people is about the people in it who defined the sound, wrote the songs, created the music.

So to you West Arkeen and Del James are part of Guns N' Roses, too? Or at least you are saying they are more a part of GN'R than Gilby ever where? Or are we going to discuss the individual merits of co-penning a few songs to adding rhythm guitar to a few tracks?

Those guys back from '85 to '93 LIVED it. They started out as a bunch of street urchins, formed a band, played gig after gig in dirty dives and small clubs, lived together in a 10x12 storage unit, they built up the fan base piece by piece, wrote the songs together, got their record contract together. They started off playing to 10 people together and then ended up playing to 100,000 people together.

Surely you are not thinking about Matt, Gilby, Rob, Tracii and Ole now? Do you see how imprecise your definition is?

Yes, the current guys who tour with Axl are all gifted musicians, but they can't ever reflect the same attitude, intensity and passion for those songs because they aren't the ones who lived it. They don't have any personal or emotional connection to those songs.

And that is an excellent reason to say that today's lineup is inferior to previous lineups. No need to confuse things by mixing up "band " and "lineup".

Axl has every right to tour with whoever he wants and to play old Guns songs, just as Slash does. But to most people, neither Slash playing old Guns songs with his band or Axl playing old Guns songs with his band will ever be Guns N Roses for the very reasons I have mentioned.

And that is because there is a collective misunderstanding about the difference between "a lineup" and "a band", but just because many people do it we should propogate this error.

Edited April 16, 2012 by SoulMonster

[cliffburton]

Define band. Many people see a new lineup as a new band. One member change, yeah mostly the same band. When all but one remains, it ceases to be that band.

[no1gooner]

I'd be there too. No problem with this old lineup and Axl's new lineup.Always thought Izzy should sing and would've been great if he had been singing the other night. I reckon they could write some bad ass tunes. Leave it kind of open to all the guys to get involved. Hell if new guns can have 2 drummers , then Steven and Matt could share.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Since the other thread was deleted I will post here.

Where do people get the "vast majority" thing from? Is there a poll or something? I am pretty sure a large number of people would go see Axl and his current band even if they want a reunion but will settle for current GN'R because it all comes down to how great the show is.

More people would be interested if there is a new album with a title and release date set. GN'R sold out shows in America in '06 because a new album was promised, now three years afterward they either want a reunion or a new album

[cliffburton]

Pretty easy dude, they've all been offered like 7 figures to reunite. Producers, tour managers and everyone else has been pushing axl for a reunion. Axl constantly gets shit on in the media. All of this happens because of the massive demand for a reunion. None of this would happen if not for that demand. GNR these days can't release music and struggles to sell shows. The reunion would guarantee a sold out world tour of stadiums.

Edited April 16, 2012 by cliffburton

[Chewbacca]

Define band. Many people see a new lineup as a new band. One member change, yeah mostly the same band. When all but one remains, it ceases to be that band.

What about Motörhead?

[Georgy Zhukov]

Promoters want a reunion for a money. Axl will turn down millions if they keep pressuring him but all it takes is the former members to swallow their pride and admit they were wrong. All the money in the world is not going to get them back together. Their best bet to profit off the GN'R is to promote another album with the current band.

[cliffburton]

Define band. Many people see a new lineup as a new band. One member change, yeah mostly the same band. When all but one remains, it ceases to be that band.

What about Motörhead?

Don't know anything about them.

[Chewbacca]

Define band. Many people see a new lineup as a new band. One member change, yeah mostly the same band. When all but one remains, it ceases to be that band.

What about Motörhead?

Don't know anything about them.

Lemmy is the only one from the original lineup left and people still consider it to be the same band. What makes Axl's case so special?

[cliffburton]

Promoters want a reunion for a money. Axl will turn down millions if they keep pressuring him but all it takes is the former members to swallow their pride and admit they were wrong. All the money in the world is not going to get them back together. Their best bet to profit off the GN'R is to promote another album with the current band.

The millions are there because of the demand of a reunion over what we have now. That was my point.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Define band. Many people see a new lineup as a new band. One member change, yeah mostly the same band. When all but one remains, it ceases to be that band.

What about Motörhead?

Don't know anything about them.

Lemmy

Promoters want a reunion for a money. Axl will turn down millions if they keep pressuring him but all it takes is the former members to swallow their pride and admit they were wrong. All the money in the world is not going to get them back together. Their best bet to profit off the GN'R is to promote another album with the current band.

The millions are there because of the demand of a reunion over what we have now. That was my point.

A reunion will never happen. They might as well focus on what money they could make now. I think Axl should go independent. He has capable producers in the band that should have no problem releasing the unreleased tracks and new material.

[cliffburton]

Define band. Many people see a new lineup as a new band. One member change, yeah mostly the same band. When all but one remains, it ceases to be that band.

What about Motörhead?

Don't know anything about them.

Lemmy is the only one from the original lineup left and people still consider it to be the same band. What makes Axl's case so special?

Like I said I know nothing about them or who wrote what. Axl case is what it is because the song writers, personalities, and the overall sound of the band is gone in this current lineup. They saw slash as axl's equal. They were a duo. I don't know motorhead, but id bet no one gave two shits about their former members to being with. If they do care, then I'd view their situation he same.

Edited April 16, 2012 by cliffburton