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

[trqster]

Nu GnR to me is a great rock band leaded by the greatest front man ever - as simple as that. That being said, Nu GnR has little to do with 'old' GnR except for the fact that it has the same singer...

[stumbleine]

re sweetness,

you're right.when Izzy left, it was over.people need to realize this.

Izzy was the most important member of GNR.Duff explains it in his book,Slash as well.

[shotgunblues1978]

-Axl Rose is my favorite musician

-Axl came up with the name Guns N' Roses and started the band

-Axl's opinion on what is/isn't Guns N' Roses is more valid than anyone else's

-I have more important things to worry about than what Axl wants to call his band; as long as they are putting on good live shows featuring music that I enjoy, and I enjoy the new music they release, I'll support the the band

Honestly anyone who still cares about the name after all these years, a decade of touring, a new album, etc. really needs to get over it and move on with their life. This debate has gotten beyond boring and tiresome.

[SoulMonster]

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.

I agree with everything you wrote (I read it twice to be sure). But although the band changed qualitatively for the worse when Izzy left, I still refer to it by its rightful name. It is not up to me to name bands, it is up to the band, and they call it Guns ' Roses so that's what I will be doing, too. It's the only sensible thing to do. I might not like the band as much, or at all, but it is what it is. Nothing's gonna change by me spitefully refusing to name it by its name.

[Voodoochild]

Is it the same band to you, if so, why?

Of course not. But it's the same name and I won't bother to call it something else.

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?

Because I like the music and their live performance. And, of course, Im still hoping for something new, which will eventually come out.

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

I don't care about their internal problems, I like the music. If I don't like it anymore, I stop being a fan. Right now, I pretty much hate everything Ashba plays, but the band as a whole still rocks IMHO.

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

Who said they have no intentions?

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?

Not always the case, but I much prefer Robin's take on SCOM than Slash. I don't care about the bullshit and who wrote what, if I like it more, so it is.

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.

Why those "opponents of New GN'R" lose their time to bash New GN'R as if it would make any difference?

[sweetness]

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.

I agree with everything you wrote (I read it twice to be sure). But although the band changed qualitatively for the worse when Izzy left, I still refer to it by its rightful name. It is not up to me to name bands, it is up to the band, and they call it Guns ' Roses so that's what I will be doing, too. It's the only sensible thing to do. I might not like the band as much, or at all, but it is what it is. Nothing's gonna change by me spitefully refusing to name it by its name.

it has nothing to do with spite, I just don't think anything other than what GNR was can ever be GNR, I love that band too much to take any "other incarnation" seriously. The official name of the band on paper means nothing to me, I don't care if Axl calls his band Guns N' Roses or The Bubble Bunch, I just know it's not the same band that released some of my favorite albums, it's a completely different group of guys doing something completely different. I still love it, I still support it, but out of respect for something i love way more I just don't acknowledge them as the same thing, cause they aren't.

I don't have any problem with anybody who chooses to refer to this band as Guns N' Roses, after all that's what it says on the ticket, I just completely disagree

Edited May 28, 2012 by sweetness

[Fogy Malone]

The reason why this band is Guns N' Roses is because Slash & Duff sold the rights over to Axl. Slash & Duff believed that the fans would never accept the band to be Guns N' Roses with Axl & whoever but we're in 2012 and Axl is still making money off the name so I guess they were wrong.

If Slash & Duff had not sold their rights over to Axl the band would of broken up and that would of been the end of Guns N' Roses. Axl would have had to make his comeback under another name and no one would of considered the new band to be Guns n' Roses.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Fogy Malone

[Chinaski]

There is no "new" GNR and "old" GNR. There's been many many versions of GNR.

Axl himself makes the distinction actually.

[hitmanhart408]

There is no "new" GNR and "old" GNR. There's been many many versions of GNR.

Axl himself makes the distinction actually.

not saying you're wrong, but can you please provide a quote? (and not a paraphrase from memory)

[Chinaski]

not saying you're wrong, but can you please provide a quote? (and not a paraphrase from memory)

Damn you! I didn't want to have to try to remember which interview it was from. I am sure someone will know. I know it was on one of the radio appearances (maybe Eddie Trunk in 06) where they asked him what he calls the band(s) and he says he does call the old band 'oldguns' to make it clear what he is referring to. Or something like that. Apologies for the paraphrasing when you specifically requested otherwise, if I still have the interviews on my computer I'll have a listen and see if I can find it.

[hitmanhart408]

There is no "new" GNR and "old" GNR. There's been many many versions of GNR.

Axl himself makes the distinction actually.

axl said there is guns and old guns but that he understands why others think of it as new guns and guns. very kind of him to be so understanding of how wrong others can be.

he has to be kind about it, if he wasn't he would get shit on

[GET OFF AXLS BACK]

Is any of this thread serious?

[OJones90]

I see it more like Guns N Roses v.2.0. But still Guns N Roses. Axl is the main force behind Guns N Roses and always will be.

Okay, so the most popular group of guys left. That's fine, because Guns N Roses existed before Slash anyway. Some people will be disappointed because they love Slash so much, but the show must go on. It's like a football club, players come and go, but you still support them no matter what. There are other talented guitarists in the world and Axl deserves so much credit for keeping the spirit of GnR alive. He's built one hell of an awesome band over the last few years especially.

Regardless of the name of the bands, new Guns n Roses are more Guns n Roses than Velvet Revolver have ever been, even though that contains most of the 'original' members, haha

Edited May 28, 2012 by OJones90

[Jakey Styley]

What IS New GNR at this point?

[Chinaski]

There is no "new" GNR and "old" GNR.

Axl himself makes the distinction actually.

axl said there is guns and old guns

I am not sure what your point is? Are you saying even Axl is wrong in differentiating between the old band and the current band?

If you mean that there is no 'newgnr', I agree that I suppose it is obviously fair enough to refer to 'Guns N Roses' in the present tense, which would obviously pertain to what is operating as Guns N Roses today, i.e the present band, or to refer to 'old guns' which would refer to a different incarnation of GNR in the past (although obviously you would then have to specify which era you were referring to).

Edited May 28, 2012 by Chinaski

[The Archer]

The reason why this band is Guns N' Roses is because Slash & Duff sold the rights over to Axl. Slash & Duff believed that the fans would never except the band to be Guns N' Roses with Axl & whoever but we're in 2012 and Axl is still making money off the name so I guess they were wrong.

If Slash & Duff had not sold their rights over to Axl the band would of broken up and that would of been the end of Guns N' Roses. Axl would have had to make his comeback under another name and no one would of considered the new band to be Guns n' Roses.

A lot of the hate towards Axl is misdirected and unjustly so.

[RocketQueen1985]

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.

I agree with this.

I support the current GN'R because Axl is my favorite front man ever. He is amazing and I don't believe anyone like him will ever come along again. He fascinates me and I'm intrigued by his work and everything he does. I saw them live in 2010 and since then I've loved this line up just as much as I love the old line up. The show was amazing and I will cherish that memory forever. I love all the members of the band, they are all talented and great musicians and I don't understand the hate towards them. It's not the current members fault there won't be a reunion, that's the original members fault. So taking your frustration over that there won't be a reunion out on the current members is just stupid to me.

Also, at this point it's either the current Guns N' Roses or no Guns N' Roses. Axl said "not in this life time" about a reunion and Slash said "It's not worth it". None of them are interested in going back and trying to relive the past. So you can either accept that and support the current GN'R and the ex members solo projects or you can bitter about how you don't think it's GN'R anymore. I loved old GN'R but I also love new GN'R. Just because you support the new line up it doesn't mean you're against the old one. It is possible to love and support both the old and new, you know?

[HisRoyalSweetness]

i was open to the idea of axl carrying on as gnr. because i liked axl and figured he'd still make cool music with other musicians. but oh my god was a big disappointment. and the vma's. by the time i got around to seeing nugnr at msg in 2k2, i'd given up all hope that nugnr would be cool. by the time i was watching a guy with a bucket on his head play the sound track from star wars and pass out toys, i was almost convinced axl was trying to punk his fans. but no... it turned out he was just crazy. now i'm just interested in what happens to axl as a pop culture icon and former celebrity hero of my childhood. i don't expect him to make anything i'll ever be that into again. if for no reason that he's collaborating with a bunch of third-string musicians who never made anything i was interested in before, or likely ever will be. save for the fact that axl may have used some of their tracks on some layer of some song at some point.

i think the idea of "supporting" the band is stupid. they're a band. they make music. some of which i like. some of which i don't. really no different than any other band in that respect. but with nugnr, they've decided to spend a generation on one album... something that would be a transitional one record phase with any other band has been drawn out for over a decade -- and possibly more with touring. so liking this one album has become a referendum on axl's whole vision of a new gnr. i don't think loyalty dictates i have to be a fan of every record to be a fan of a band. i don't think i have to support them. i think i can like some music, not like others, and talk about it with fans. because gnr isn't very popular any more, we have to go online to find other fans to talk to.

Edited May 28, 2012 by HisRoyalSweetness

[The Archer]

Nu GnR to me is a great rock band leaded by the greatest front man ever - as simple as that. That being said, Nu GnR has little to do with 'old' GnR except for the fact that it has the same singer...

Great Signature. It reminds me of another one on this forum.

But, yours makes sense

now i'm just interested in what happens to axl as a pop culture icon and former celebrity hero of my childhood.

just 'interested'?