Why do you support New GNR as Guns N' Roses?

Nosaj Thing · May 28, 2012

I support Axl Rose.

Revolver · May 28, 2012

I love what they have released and I'd like them to release more.. therefore, I support this band.

Oh, and it's called 'Guns N' Roses' so I support them as such, just as I would if they called themselves 'Twinkleberries'

It's not the same GN'R we had years ago, but another form of it.. I am glad they kept the name because if they hadn't, then my favorite band wouldn't exist anymore and I don't know how I'd feel about that. But it does! it may be different but it's still very good even though it's frustrating seeing no new music on the horizon

MB. · May 28, 2012

I don't.

Neither do I.

I support the band as Newgnr or as Axl's band. I never call them GNR, but I do like them. But not as much (not even close) as Guns 'n Roses.

SoulMonster · May 28, 2012

For all who do: Why do you support and/or accept post 1997 Guns N' Roses as being "Guns N' Roses"? I mean besides the legal technicality aspect of it. Is it the same band to you, if so, why?

Whenever a band is called something that's what I call it. This band IS Guns N' Roses. Period. Should I stop calling it by its name just because it has gone through lineup changes?? Of course not. That is laughable.

bran · May 28, 2012

Bands evolve. Van Halen, Deep Purple, Fleetwood Mac, Pink Floyd, The Misfits.
When Matt Sorum joined the band, I was bitter about it... when I was 12 years old. Then I got over it. And through all the other lineup changes, I accepted them (except Gilby, he's a toolbox), and accepted the band.
It's really not that complicated nor difficult to understand. Some people will just never let go of the past.
yeah i have also said this its like talking to a wall though
black sabbath,deep purple,candlemass,iron maiden, venom, mercyful fate etc have had members come and go it happens people quit and are replaced , other bands fans have gotten over it, some fans of this band have this obsession where they just cant let go
There's one very big difference between all those bands you listed and GNR, and that's output. These bands kept being productive, they consistently released material through their lineup changes, GNR have not. That makes it a bit more difficult to see the lineup changes as positive thing

i agree 100 percent with this i have said if there were 3 or 4 albums by now it would give those people less to bitch about, but i still think they would still find something to bitch about IMO.

Edited May 28, 2012 by bran

classicrawker · May 28, 2012

For all who do: Why do you support and/or accept post 1997 Guns N' Roses as being "Guns N' Roses"? I mean besides the legal technicality aspect of it. Is it the same band to you, if so, why?
Whenever a band is called something that's what I call it. This band IS Guns N' Roses. Period. Should I stop calling it by its name just because it has gone through lineup changes?? Of course not. That is laughable.

Not everyone is laughing with you mate.............

saber_ · May 28, 2012

Well perhaps you should actually read the section headings. Because there is clearly a forum for OLD Guns' lineups and EX Gunners. This is for discussion of CURRENT happenings and CURRENT Guns.
Sorry I did not realize you had to be a Axl cultist to post in this section.........

It's okay, i know you and your ilk live for the moment you can post something about OLD guns in this section. I'm sure it gives your life meaning. Keep up the good work, you're clearly accomplishing your goals... of a unified Guns n Roses message board. LMFAO hahaha

You're just mad because this section is busier than pre-94, which is dead as a door nail.
Yeah good work Sherlock you figured me out...Yeah I am mad, that's it..........

I'm glad you finally admitted it. After all the mega trolling, and then the bragging about trolling on other boards, it's pretty fuckin obvious that at least SOME of you anti-nuGuns people are angry and upset. Why else would you try sooo hard to discuss OLD guns and OLD things in the CURRENT guns section? Riddle me that, sparky.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Popcorn's Snare

droezle · May 28, 2012

I don't, to me this band is more like Axl and his Replicats.

SoulMonster · May 28, 2012

For all who do: Why do you support and/or accept post 1997 Guns N' Roses as being "Guns N' Roses"? I mean besides the legal technicality aspect of it. Is it the same band to you, if so, why?
Whenever a band is called something that's what I call it. This band IS Guns N' Roses. Period. Should I stop calling it by its name just because it has gone through lineup changes?? Of course not. That is laughable.
Not everyone is laughing with you mate.............

So you are saying you find it sane to refuse to call a band by its rightful name just because it has gone through lineup changes? It doesn't sound the least bit crazy to you?

Val22 · May 28, 2012

because this is the GNR that Axl is performing with and since he has hand picked these amazing musicians and Axl is very happy with this band, we fans should support them all.

It's been over 20 years since the original members were together, Axl has moved on and we all should too. I supported the original band back in the 80's and early 90's, but this is the GNR of today, and this is the band I now support.

As long as Axl heads this band, I will always support him and them.

The music is still GNR and will live on long after any or all members are gone. That speaks for itself! The amazing music will always be the GNR legacy! I think that's pretty fuckin amazing!

classicrawker · May 28, 2012

Well perhaps you should actually read the section headings. Because there is clearly a forum for OLD Guns' lineups and EX Gunners. This is for discussion of CURRENT happenings and CURRENT Guns.
Sorry I did not realize you had to be a Axl cultist to post in this section.........
It's okay, i know you and your ilk live for the moment you can post something about OLD guns in this section. I'm sure it gives your life meaning. Keep up the good work, you're clearly accomplishing your goals... of a unified Guns n Roses message board. LMFAO hahaha
You're just mad because this section is busier than pre-94, which is dead as a door nail.
Yeah good work Sherlock you figured me out...Yeah I am mad, that's it..........
I'm glad you finally admitted it. After all the mega trolling, and then the bragging about trolling on other boards, it's pretty fuckin obvious that at least SOME of you anti-nuGuns people are angry and upset. Why else would you try sooo hard to discuss OLD guns and OLD things in the CURRENT guns section? Riddle me that, sparky.

I don't pick any particular section to post in as I look at the new content tab and respond to whatever topic strikes my fancy.....

And whoever said I was antiNuGuns? I think they are a very talented band but IMHO they will always be nothing but a cover band until Axl gets off his ass and makes new music with them..

I never go into topics related to NuGuns just to piss in yours and other fans cornflakes I only post on topics I find of interest...and please post examples of me megatrolling on any forum and where I then went on to brag about it? you are creating conspiracies which do not exist mate......

DizzyReedsexmachine · May 28, 2012

I don't.

+1 They are just a cover band full with losers - BBF,Fortus,DJ Ashba ,Pittman ................. :violin:

classicrawker · May 28, 2012

For all who do: Why do you support and/or accept post 1997 Guns N' Roses as being "Guns N' Roses"? I mean besides the legal technicality aspect of it. Is it the same band to you, if so, why?
Whenever a band is called something that's what I call it. This band IS Guns N' Roses. Period. Should I stop calling it by its name just because it has gone through lineup changes?? Of course not. That is laughable.
Not everyone is laughing with you mate.............
So you are saying you find it sane to refuse to call a band by its rightful name just because it has gone through lineup changes? It doesn't sound the least bit crazy to you?

Crazy is subjective mate and I have seen things posted here which are much crazier then what you are asserting..................

GNR123GNR456 · May 28, 2012

I support today's band as Guns N' Roses because it is Guns N' Roses. Just like alot of other bands, members come and go. There is arguments, fights and ego's that split up a band and cause members to leave. The thing is that the old members quit, the band didn't officially broke-up. As old members left, they were replaced with new one's. Steven left and was replaced with Matt, Izzy left and was replaced with Gilby, Slash left and was replaced by Robin, Buckethead left and was replaced by Bumblefoot. The band never officially ended.

Alot of people don't like current GN'R because there's no Slash. Some because they don't like Axl and blame him for the old members leaving. But it's still Guns N' Roses. It's includes new members, but Guns N' Roses never officially broke-up or disbanded, band members left and were replaced. Just like Van Halen, KISS, Iron Maiden, Whitesnake, Poison, Metallica, Motley Crue, Megadeth, Black Sabbath, Judas Priest and Skid Row.

Bumble's Bridge Pickup · May 28, 2012

I don't really. I used to but then I realized that the only argument for it is that Axl owns the name.

Not that I don't consider them an interesting band, but GN'R they aren't in any other than the legal sense.

batman007 · May 28, 2012

I support Axl 's vision of what he wants Guns to be. Old band members been fired and taken their ball and quit. I love going to a GNR concert and hearing the music I love. If I could escape our world of problems for a kick ass 2hr plus show, that is fn awesome! The band members respect the former band members, and I think that is cool. In my opinion the current members just play better live. If I had a choice to see either lineup, current or old. It would definitely be the current. And I have nothing against the former members. I'm not stupid I know they paved the way for the Guns legacy. Chinese democracy is probably my favorite album, and think its fn sick when I hear the tracks live. For people to say its not the "real" GNR is always funny to me. The people who usually say that are the close minded people who live in the past, and can't move forward. TheI current members are dedicated to the music of Guns, and are all very talented people. I keep supporting also because whenever new music comes out, I know without a shadow of a doubt it will be brilliant!

Modano09 · May 28, 2012

I got into GNR around 1994, when I was 12. At that age I just really liked Axl, I thought he was cool. I liked the other guys but Axl stood out as being the cool one for me....I used to listen every song and liked every thing the band put out (okay not My World), but as I got older I found my musical taste change and I was more into "deeper" music, I guess...so my favorite GNR songs started to become the ones that were "Axl songs". I loved his lyrics, and the way he could get across his emotions through his voice...even today, I'll listen to Paradise City and Welcome to the Jungle if they come on the radio, rock out to them at the concerts, or if they're played at a bar....but if I throw on a GNR album in the car, I'm going for Breakdown, Coma, things like that...I guess I just get invested in the artist and what they think/feel and so I'm more interested in the emotionally interesting and deep singer than the guitar player who just wants to get drunk and play riffs...GNR has always been Axl to me, and it's the Axl aspects of the band that I'm still drawn to all these years later and what makes them stand out as more than just a great rock band from the 90's to me...I wouldn't care if he didn't call the band GNR, and I think had he of gotten a steady line up and started releasing music earlier he might have been able to have people see him as GNR...we tend to forget that Axl Rose was a pretty big deal in the 90's, if he put together a stable band and put out good music people would've gotten over it not being the "real" band...but my attraction to GNR has always been Axl anyway.

SoulMonster · May 28, 2012

For all who do: Why do you support and/or accept post 1997 Guns N' Roses as being "Guns N' Roses"? I mean besides the legal technicality aspect of it. Is it the same band to you, if so, why?
Whenever a band is called something that's what I call it. This band IS Guns N' Roses. Period. Should I stop calling it by its name just because it has gone through lineup changes?? Of course not. That is laughable.
Not everyone is laughing with you mate.............
So you are saying you find it sane to refuse to call a band by its rightful name just because it has gone through lineup changes? It doesn't sound the least bit crazy to you?
Crazy is subjective mate and I have seen things posted here which are much crazier then what you are asserting..................

So you do find it sane to refuse to call a band by its rightful name just because is has gone through lineup changes? It doesn't sound the least bit crazy to you?

Do all the guys who refuse to call the band emerging from Fleetwood Mac after Peter Green et al left, agree on what they should call the new band since they refuse to call it Fleetwood Mac? Or do they all have their own pet names for this band? It's got to be mighty confusing to be so fixated on lineups. And what about Megadeath? Do they have unique names for that band for every particular lineup that has existed and do they all agree on their particular psycho band nomenclature to at least make their mental deviation consistent within their own deranged clique?

I don't really. I used to but then I realized that the only argument for it is that Axl owns the name.
Not that I don't consider them an interesting band, but GN'R they aren't in any other than the legal sense.

What about the fact that all band members refer to themselves as "Guns N' Roses"? I mean, when a band calls itself with a certain name and there is no legal objection to that, what other reasons do you need??

sweetness · May 28, 2012

Jyrgen -
Axl owning the name is not the only argument. I just presented a totally separate argument. An argument most bitter ex-fans try to ignore as it puts a serious dent in their position.
There is no "new" GNR and "old" GNR. There's been many many versions of GNR.
But feel free to let us know when you feel it stopped being GNR. As far as I'm concerned, if Axl/Duff/Dizzy/Paul/Robin was GNR, it doesn't stop being GNR just because Duff quits.

When Izzy left

netcord · May 28, 2012

I actually think this is a fair good question. I support it because I grew up on Axl Rose's music and find it to be generally great. If it was called Guns N' Roses or Axl's Roses or anything else for that matter I would be interested in the music and the performances. I like most am not too concerned who is playing with Axl. He finds good competent musicians. I like Bumble, Fortus, Ashba and crew just fine. To be fair I've purchased Slash's music as well as some of Izzy's stuff and really like some of it. But I find that I like Axl's music / art the best. Would I prefer if he didn't call it Guns N' Roses... probably because it would separate the Old and the New stuff for those who are transfixed on 'This is not Guns N' Roses', but I don't find that reason enough not to be supportive. I like the music and appreciate it regardless of what the band making it is called.

classicrawker · May 28, 2012

For all who do: Why do you support and/or accept post 1997 Guns N' Roses as being "Guns N' Roses"? I mean besides the legal technicality aspect of it. Is it the same band to you, if so, why?
Whenever a band is called something that's what I call it. This band IS Guns N' Roses. Period. Should I stop calling it by its name just because it has gone through lineup changes?? Of course not. That is laughable.
Not everyone is laughing with you mate.............
So you are saying you find it sane to refuse to call a band by its rightful name just because it has gone through lineup changes? It doesn't sound the least bit crazy to you?
Crazy is subjective mate and I have seen things posted here which are much crazier then what you are asserting..................
So you do find it sane to refuse to call a band by its rightful name just because is has gone through lineup changes? It doesn't sound the least bit crazy to you?
Do all the guys who refuse to call the band emerging from Fleetwood Mac after Peter Green et al left, agree on what they should call the new band since they refuse to call it Fleetwood Mac? Or do they all have their own pet names for this band? It's got to be mighty confusing to be so fixated on lineups. And what about Megadeath? Do they have unique names for that band for every particular lineup that has existed and do they all agree on their particular psycho band nomenclature to at least make their mental deviation consistent within their own deranged clique?
I don't really. I used to but then I realized that the only argument for it is that Axl owns the name.
Not that I don't consider them an interesting band, but GN'R they aren't in any other than the legal sense.
What about the fact that all band members refer to themselves as "Guns N' Roses"? I mean, when a band calls itself with a certain name and there is no legal objection to that, what other reasons do you need??

Crazy is a bit strong mate I would call it a preference.............If Axl had put out as much new music as the other bands you mentioned fans would be a little more accepting I think...Like I said I am still waiting for Axl to dazzle me with new music..........

volcano62 · May 28, 2012

That is BY FAR the most legitimate position of anybody that says "it's not GNR anymore." Izzy leaving is when Axl becomes the only original member. I have no gripe with someone who feels that way. I consider that to be more logical and reasonable than any other departure someone could point to.

Interesting. If the bitter ex-fans want to get technical then this is for them.

SoulMonster · May 28, 2012

Jyrgen -
Axl owning the name is not the only argument. I just presented a totally separate argument. An argument most bitter ex-fans try to ignore as it puts a serious dent in their position.
There is no "new" GNR and "old" GNR. There's been many many versions of GNR.
But feel free to let us know when you feel it stopped being GNR. As far as I'm concerned, if Axl/Duff/Dizzy/Paul/Robin was GNR, it doesn't stop being GNR just because Duff quits.
When Izzy left

What do you call the and that toured during the UYI tour, then? Or the band that existed after Gilby was fired? And the band that existed until Slash quit? Or the band that existed until Matt was fired/quit? Or the band that existed until Duff left? And so on? Since you are so fixated on the connection between band members and band name, I assume you have unique names for each of the following lineups. And do you extend this insanity to other band as well? Do you arbitrarily decide which band members are required for the band to still have its name, and then come up with new names as the band and lineup evolve? Do you often end up in confusing discussions when talking about bands since you have adopted your very own band name system?

The_Universal_Sigh · May 28, 2012

I find Axl and his shenanigans interesting, I liked Chinese Democracy as a solo album, the whole mystery of GNR is intriguing (will anything leak? Will CD2 come out? Will there be a reunion someday?). There's a lot of interesting stuff to follow. It's not Guns N Roses, per se, but I love Axl's musical abilities and he's using them under this name so I'll be first in fucking line to listen to whatever he releases - whatever he feels to label the band as.

People forget, this isn't the NEW guns n roses section it's the NEWS for guns n roses section. So besides topics about Ashba swag, Ron interviews, set lists you get stuff like: