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

[WhazUp]

This is an issue that really wil never be resolved or has no one answer. Guns N' Roses means something different to any one person, so what constitutes the vibe and entity that is "Guns N' Roses" is really not just one thing. For example, I consider this band to be a different band with the same name rather than a different lineup of the same band. But other people might have a different view, but that's cool, I don't expect everyone to have the same view. I just simply like the music of this lineup so I support them, putting the name aside.

[classicrawker]

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?

Personally I kind of like the Deep Purple model of using the Mk.# after each incarnation as it makes it much easier to keep track of the different versions...would that make you feel better if we called NuGun Guns N Roses Mk. whatever?

Edited May 28, 2012 by classicrawker

[SoulMonster]

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..........

I don't know. I think it is fairly loco to refuse to call a brand by its name just because you have decided its contents are not what it should be. It is actually selfish in a way, because it signals that your own perceptions of what the brand should be somehow overrules the brand or producer itself. It is also short-sighted because it is a recipe for confusion.

Fact is, products evolve all the time, including bands. Some times for the better, some times for the worse.

[AxlCorp]

Not necessarily better, it's just the way it has evolved. Right or wrong, it's the way it is, and I support it cause it entertains me. Saw the original 5 times, saw the new 4 times, both have good things and bad, but in the end, I accept whatever happens as long as I enjoy the music.

[SoulMonster]

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?

Personally I kind of like the Deep Purple model of using the Mk.# after each incarnation as it makes it much easier to keep track of the different versions...would that make you feel better if we called NuGun Guns N Roses Mk. whatever?

I don't care what you call it. I am just pointing out that the band IS called Guns N' Roses and that there are no sane reasons for not calling it by that name. If you need to refer to a particular lineup or incarnation of Guns N' Roses, just refer to that lineup by name or something else, e.g. GN'R anno 1991, the AFD lineup, etc. It is much more precise and leaves less room for misunderstanding than if everyone just decides to individually name brands after their own head based on their own wack idea of when it deserves or not deserves to have a particular name.

[classicrawker]

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..........

I don't know. I think it is fairly loco to refuse to call a brand by its name just because you have decided its contents are not what it should be. It is actually selfish in a way, because it signals that your own perceptions of what the brand should be somehow overrules the brand or producer itself. It is also short-sighted because it is a recipe for confusion.

Fact is, products evolve all the time, including bands. Some times for the better, some times for the worse.

So then all the people who called the New Coke "New Coke" were crazy? Even Axl said he understood people not calling Nu Gun as Guns and didn't he refer to the current band as just straight Guns in his Rants here did he?

In regard to nuGuns, I get that sometimes it helps to be able to clarify. Personally I call this Guns and the Illusions or previous lineups old Guns.

Even Axl gets it..........

[Spuffy78]

I don't support them "as Guns N' Roses"

But Axl Rose is my favorite singer of all time, he's written some of my all time favorite songs, and overall I just think he's an awesome human being. He is a human being though, he has his flaws, but he wouldn't be such an interesting character without them. I'll support whatever he's doing, but I don't buy this band as Guns N' Roses at all. This is a completely different band that means something completely different to me than the guys who put out AFD, Lies, and the Illusions. I just kinda play along I guess...

Sums up my feelings.

[The_Universal_Sigh]

Guns and the Illusions. Ha. That's perfect, actually.

[droezle]

Is this incarnation of G N' R a band or is this a firm with Axl as the boss and the rest of the members as his employees?

[classicrawker]

With all due respect SM obsessing on what people call the current band could be deemed a little crazy yes?

Carry on mates it is time to take the kids to the local park for some hiking and play in the play park...beautiful sunny day here in Massachussets........

[GET OFF AXLS BACK]

I don't, I support new GnR as another incarnation.

[Guest Satanisk_Slakt]

I am thinking what there would be that I could possibly like about this band except from Axl. I've been thinking for 30 seconds now and still haven't thought of anything.

I'll go to their concerts since Axl is one of my big heroes, but this is not and will never be GNR and people that say that they're better live than real GNR needs a reality check.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Satanisk_Slakt

[grigori]

I don't.

This. Just being honest. I've seen Buckethead twice. I'm going to see Slash this Summer. I don't support the band and don't see them as GN'R. Nice band and all but I'm not really interested in paying to see them.

[SoulMonster]

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..........

I don't know. I think it is fairly loco to refuse to call a brand by its name just because you have decided its contents are not what it should be. It is actually selfish in a way, because it signals that your own perceptions of what the brand should be somehow overrules the brand or producer itself. It is also short-sighted because it is a recipe for confusion.

Fact is, products evolve all the time, including bands. Some times for the better, some times for the worse.

So then all the people who called the New Coke "New Coke" were crazy? Even Axl said he understood people not calling Nu Gun as Guns and didn't he refer to the current band as just straight Guns in his Rants here did he?

In regard to nuGuns, I get that sometimes it helps to be able to clarify. Personally I call this Guns and the Illusions or previous lineups old Guns.

Even Axl gets it..........

If it was called something else and they just decided to say its name was "New Coke" rather than, say, "the new Coke", then, yes, they were pretty loco, too. You see, the Guns N' Roses we have now is the "new Guns N' Roses", but the band is not called "New Guns N' Roses".

I don't think there is any question that Axl considers the band "Guns N' Roses", but even he has to, for clarification purposes, make a distinction between different versions of the band (nu guns vs old guns), that DOES NOT mean he doesn't consider the band he is in for "Guns N' Roses". I prefer to be more precise ad refer to particular years or lineups (since, after all, "nu guns" could mean so much).

With all due respect SM obsessing on what people call the current band could be deemed a little crazy yes?

Why do you think I obsess more over this than any other person in this thread? And when did calling a brand by its rightful name become crazy?

[The_Universal_Sigh]

The fact that you care so much what OTHER people think is crazy. I don't think it's guns n roses I don't give a flim flying fuck if you think that's similar to someone not liking the new version of an old product.

EDIT: I also don't give a hot fuck if you think this is GNR.

Edited May 28, 2012 by The_Universal_Sigh

[kanudo19]

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?

Why do you support a band which has only released one 14 song album in the 15 years of it's existence, which has toured the same album for over 10 years now?

How is this band Guns N' Roses, to you, if the only holdovers from the AFD/UYI era GN'R are Axl and Dizzy?

Why do you continue to praise a band who seems to have no intentions of releasing a new album any time soon?

For those who feel New GN'R is "better" than Old GN'R, would you explain why you feel New GN'R is superior to the old?

Opponents of New GN'R have made their stance very clear time and time again and have explained why they don't feel "Nu GN'R" is "Guns N' Roses", and have given their reasons as to why they "bash" New GN'R. But I don't recall ever seeing new band fans giving clear responses to these sorts of questions.

because this is guns n roses !

and why do u fuckin haters say that gnr ended on 1997 ??? by that time only duff, slash and axl were the originals ! to u the real gnr is any line up if it includes slash ??? if u prefer the old band then at least say that gnr died in 1990

[downzy]

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.

MSL, I think you come up with some good points. Identity is a relative concept, one that is difficult to define and means many things to many people. Personally, I accepted this band as GNR simply because no other band out there is trying to be GNR as well. If Duff, Slash, Izzy, Matt/Steven reformed and got a new singer, then it would likely have me reconsider who the "real" GNR is. But in the end, a band identity is a concept that changes with the ebbs and flows of time, output, personnel, and reputation.

I've always seen GNR as an Axl and Slash thing, but then I find myself challenging that concept when I consider how instrumental Izzy was in the creative output of the band. In that sense, GNR died in '91 when Izzy officially left the band, but that doesn't gel with my own belief that GNR up until 1993 still functioned on some level. At that point, three-fifths of the original/classic lineup was still in the band (a majority), hence it was easy to accept the band as GNR.

It's sort of like asking at what point in a tear down of a car do you stop considering it an automobile. And I think here we get to the heart of the matter. Under this perspective, GNR died in '93 and started moving again in 2001. Like I said, they're the only group with original members (well, one, Axl) that is still trying to be Guns N' Roses. As as been brought up a couple of times, had this incarnation produced more than it has thus far, it would be easier to equate this version of GNR with the old band. To extend the car analogy further, if GNR between 87-93 were moving at 200 miles per hour, what fans have been shown thus far is a band that doesn't like to get out of second gear. Axl decided that with the departure of other former members that he wanted to keep it going but has little to show for all of his efforts from a fan's perspective. The GNR racecar still moves, but it's far from taking any victory laps like it did back in the classic era.

Anyway, my two cents.

Cheers,

Andrew

[The Archer]

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?

Pre 1997 is Old Guns. Post 1997 is New Guns. Different lineups.. Still Guns N' Roses.

.

Why do you support a band which has only released one 14 song album in the 15 years of it's existence, which has toured the same album for over 10 years now?

CD is Guns N' Roses music and it is beautiful.

How is this band Guns N' Roses, to you, if the only holdovers from the AFD/UYI era GN'R are Axl and Dizzy?

There is no Guns N' Roses without Axl Rose.

Why do you continue to praise a band who seems to have no intentions of releasing a new album any time soon?

They Kick Ass.

For those who feel New GN'R is "better" than Old GN'R, would you explain why you feel New GN'R is superior to the old?

N/A - different eras have their own positives and negatives. CD has explored newer territory and the current lineup is tight live.

Opponents of New GN'R have made their stance very clear time and time again and have explained why they don't feel "Nu GN'R" is "Guns N' Roses", and have given their reasons as to why they "bash" New GN'R. But I don't recall ever seeing new band fans giving clear responses to these sorts of questions.

Not true if you read beyond what you want to read.

Edited May 28, 2012 by The Archer

[SoulMonster]

The fact that you care so much what OTHER people think is crazy.

I guess I am just a very caring person with a firm grasp on nomenclature.

[username]

A. Axl

B. Accepting reality

[finck6]

i support the original chinese democracy band. robin. bucket. tommy. brain. they're my rock idols. post slash, duff, izzy, steven, gilby, and matt sorum

as for current nu gnr....i respect what dj ashba and bumblefoot have been doing with 3 hours show performed every night with axl

[stumbleine]

for me, personally,the name Guns N Roses is like a state of mind.

those five gutter punks who rose from the LA streets to rule the world made it seem like anything was possible.

follow your dreams.

"New GNR" with it's bumbles and cashbas has nothing to do with this.they are the people Slash refused to be when he didn't sign that contract.

also,I grew up with GNR,the real band,and AFD is in my DNA.Axl is shitting all over something that was never a brand like it is now."GNR owned by Axl".

to those who ask "what are you doing on a messsageboard after all these years?",I'm an Axl fan at the end of the day.he shaped the way

I look at the world.he just needs to get his bipolar ass in the studio!

[MarlaHooch]

It's Axl's band, always has been, always will be.

No Axl = Sweet Child would be just a string-skipping dick-around warmup exercise of Slash's.

No Axl = the Locomotive riff would be a badass palm-muted in A riff, nothing more. It certainly wouldn't turn into what it turns into at the end.

No Axl = no Patience, November Rain, Estranged, or basically anything that evolved the band's direction from "Anything Goes".

No Axl = no three hour shows and no rotating setlists during their heyday.

In fairness, it was Axl and Izzy's band in the beginning/during their prime and if Axl is the "visionary" in Guns N' Roses, Izzy was his #2 and shares a chunk of credit for some of the songs that started and then evolved the band. But Izzy is still cool with Axl and comes out and plays with him. If Izzy's cool with it, that's good enough for me.

Since I assume the question implies "how can it be GN'R without Slash?", I've said it a million times - Slash is very much like Ace Frehley except much more credible as a musician. No one is better at being Slash than Slash, he's a great player and performer, but his style has only gone so far over the years and it certainly has not progressed one iota since his prime. I consider him a "player" and an iconic character much more than a songwriter or a visionary. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but fact is GN'R is and always has been Axl's band and Axl's vision.

Bottom line - Slash is a player, Izzy is a songwriter, Axl is both with the ambition/vision to go with it. If Axl can't play the part he envisions, he sure knows how to get someone to play it how he wants it. Look at how Sweet Child came about, look at how he pieced together the Chinese solos from a million different takes, etc.

Axl's vision = Axl's band.

[The Archer]

But I would like to know. People who dont like the new line-up. Why do you waste your time here on the earth on a forum about a band that you dont even like? Thats like I would sit and write crap on a Jay-Z-forum and just write shit about how i dont like him. Why would I waste my time like that? Well the asnwer is: I wouldnt!

This.

You tools know who you are - why don't you answer this good question. It befuddles a lot of us.

It's Axl's band, always has been, always will be.

Axl's vision = Axl's band.

+1 to everything in your OP.

[sweetness]

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?

No need to get that specific.

I just think everything Guns N' Roses meant and stood for was over when Izzy left. Izzy wasn't just an original member, he was KEY and sadly he gets overlooked as just the rhythm guitarist for the most part. Axl lost his songwriting partner, Slash lost his one of a kind rhythm guitarist, and the band lost their authenticity as a careless rock n roll outfit. By the time Izzy left, Axl was in his own dressing room, Slash and Duff were inebriated 24/7, and Steven was kicked out because of his smack habit. It was over, Guns N' Roses as the world knew it was dead. Sure they went on and toured, they recorded that covers album which I still really love, but it was already splitting at the seams and they never recovered. GNR wasn't the same idea, the hunger was gone because their bellies were full and they no longer shared that common interest. It was time to move on.

Guns N' Roses wasn't one of those bands were all the instrumentalists were replaceable, I refuse to accept that notion, therefore I refuse to accept anything without Axl, Slash, Duff, and Izzy as Guns N' Roses

Edited May 28, 2012 by sweetness