What lineup would you approve of as GNR?

[izzydoezit]

The current incarnation of the band is universally acclaimed as a nostalgia act having nothing to do with the GNR band the people loved and made big.

What lineup would you rather have to tour with Axl as "GNR" covering the classic hits? Old band members excluded.

No need to be an all-star lineup. Just a lineup you'd think it would sound awesome and stay true to the roots of the songs. Also make it kinda realistic (unlike mine). Don't put dead people in there or people that would never ever work with Axl Rose.

I'd enjoy:

Guitar 1 Steve Stevens
Guitar 2 Zakk Wylde
Bass David Eleffson
Drums Phil Rudd

[SoulMonster]

Guitar 1: Richard Fortus

Guitar 2: Bumblefoot

Bass: Tommy Stinson

Drums: Frank Ferrer

No keyboards, at all.

[Rovim]

What advantage over this current line up would we get that will make it more "true to the roots of the songs"?

Is it really what some new people will bring to the table or is it the fact that they are not Slash, Izzy, and Duff, Steven, or Gilby and Sorum?

Some fans will never consider it Gn'R without the classic line up or some of it's members involved.

What you're talking about is not even the issue here imo.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Rovim

[trqster]

What advantage over this current line up would we get that will make it more "true to the roots of the songs"?

Is it really what some new people will bring to the table or is it the fact that they are not Slash, Izzy, and Duff, Steven, or Gilby and Sorum?

Some fans will never consider it Gn'R without the classic line up or some of it's members involved.

What you're talking about is not even the issue here imo.

This.

Although it must be said that for the general public and casual fan if Slash by himself was to be back, then Guns n'Roses would be 'legit' again.

[izzydoezit]

Of course it is not GNR mostly because Slash , Duff and Izzy are missing.

BUT (and this is a big but) Axl made the worst choices he could possibly make to replace those members. The songs in 2001 sounded nothing like they should. And this had to do with the members. A band that suited the material more than those guys could have generated more positive feelings towards nuGNR and maybe in combination with a few albums since then and making amends with Slash (on a personal level), it could have been considered a legitimate new era of GNR.

[Rovim]

Of course it is not GNR mostly because Slash , Duff and Izzy are missing.

BUT (and this is a big but) Axl made the worst choices he could possibly make to replace those members. The songs in 2001 sounded nothing like they should. And this had to do with the members. A band that suited the material more than those guys could have generated more positive feelings towards nuGNR and maybe in combination with a few albums since then and making amends with Slash (on a personal level), it could have been considered a legitimate new era of GNR.

Axl chose Robin and then Bucket based not only on what the old line up has created together. He was interested in those 'modern' influences and wanted to take Gn'R to a new place.

When you hire someone like Bucket, it's gonna turn some people off. Just image wise. If I had to guess I'd say he knew that.

Now you have DJ Ashba who plays the old material in a very conservative way, and he is basically a Slash follower. That seems to help a lot when it comes to acceptence, at least outside of this forum, on some level.

Still, if Axl was satisfied with where Slash wanted to take the band musically at the time, I think there could have been a way to make something work between them.

What band could have suited the material more? I don't think it failed because of that. I think Axl not releasing anything for years was the main thing that made people not accept it as Gn'R (and again not having Slash and Duff in the line up anymore)

The players he chose were good enough to be in Gn'R imo They did their job. Not their fault it went down like it did, and maybe it wasn't all Axl's fault as well.

I do think it was a mistake not to release anything for so many years. People just thought Axl was responsible for the downfall of the old band for no good reason, cause there was nothing given for the fans.

They felt the band that they loved was taken away from them and they got nothing in return. An album in 1998 followed by another one in 2001 could have changed things imo. At least more people could have accepted it.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Rovim

[izzydoezit]

Of course it is not GNR mostly because Slash , Duff and Izzy are missing.

BUT (and this is a big but) Axl made the worst choices he could possibly make to replace those members. The songs in 2001 sounded nothing like they should. And this had to do with the members. A band that suited the material more than those guys could have generated more positive feelings towards nuGNR and maybe in combination with a few albums since then and making amends with Slash (on a personal level), it could have been considered a legitimate new era of GNR.

Still, if Axl was satisfied with where Slash wanted to take the band musically at the time, I think there could have been a way to make something work between them.

I think that Axl should have used another name considering his intentions were to depart from the classic GNR sound. Because this was not really an evolution but rather a radical departure from the past influences and a creation of a completely new concept of a band and music.

I disagree with your above comment. There was no way things could have worked. Axl fucked over the other members. By a legal move of doubtful moral he legally 'quit' the band to take over the name etc. Then he gave his bandmates a new contract to sign under which they were denoted to merely his employees. This move alone by itself was so fucked up that there was nothing he could do to make things work after that.

Edited May 28, 2013 by izzydoezit

[Dazey]

Any lineup that show they can actually write, record and release music of their own. To me the last lineup that had any legitimacy ended with Bucket's departure. It's been in limbo ever since and will continue to be so until we hear something new. Personally I'm not especially enthused to hear a DJ Ashba/Bumblefoot record but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

[Rovim]

Of course it is not GNR mostly because Slash , Duff and Izzy are missing.

BUT (and this is a big but) Axl made the worst choices he could possibly make to replace those members. The songs in 2001 sounded nothing like they should. And this had to do with the members. A band that suited the material more than those guys could have generated more positive feelings towards nuGNR and maybe in combination with a few albums since then and making amends with Slash (on a personal level), it could have been considered a legitimate new era of GNR.

Still, if Axl was satisfied with where Slash wanted to take the band musically at the time, I think there could have been a way to make something work between them.

I think that Axl should have used another name considering his intentions were to depart from the classic GNR sound. Because this was not really an evolution but rather a radical departure from the past influences and a creation of a completely new concept of a band and music.

I disagree with your above comment. There was no way things could have worked. Axl fucked over the other members. By a legal move of doubtful moral he legally 'quit' the band to take over the name etc. Then he gave his bandmates a new contract to sign under which they were denoted to merely his employees. This move alone by itself was so fucked up that there was nothing he could do to make things work after that.

Are we discussing the name thing again now? It's not like Slash and Duff left just after that happened.

Axl explained why he did that. Not wanting to lose the band name if someone died and all that. I guess if you believe Slash and Duff over what Axl said, if you think he just wanted to control it and it was just a power play then there is no point in arguing the matter.

I don't know what was the real reason so I can't really say.

As for the radical departure from past influences: I don't know. Some songs on Chinese are different, sure. But others are very similar in themes and sounds. Street Of Dreams sounds like it could have been included on UYI.

I think Axl's intentions were not to depart from the classic Gn'R sound. He wanted to keep it while updating it with whatever was going on at the time that he liked. This is why I don't think he should have used a different band name or make it a solo album. Bands do it all the time. Take Queens Of The Stone Age for example: every album is different but it still sounds like a Queens album, yet every album has featured different players.

But that point can also be viewed differently by old school fans. It depends on what you think about Chinese. I hear some Guns in there. Maybe a lot of people don't, cause for them, what Slash, Duff, and Izzy brought to the Guns sound was crucial to make it a true Guns record.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Rovim

[izzydoezit]

Of course it is not GNR mostly because Slash , Duff and Izzy are missing.

BUT (and this is a big but) Axl made the worst choices he could possibly make to replace those members. The songs in 2001 sounded nothing like they should. And this had to do with the members. A band that suited the material more than those guys could have generated more positive feelings towards nuGNR and maybe in combination with a few albums since then and making amends with Slash (on a personal level), it could have been considered a legitimate new era of GNR.

Still, if Axl was satisfied with where Slash wanted to take the band musically at the time, I think there could have been a way to make something work between them.

I think that Axl should have used another name considering his intentions were to depart from the classic GNR sound. Because this was not really an evolution but rather a radical departure from the past influences and a creation of a completely new concept of a band and music.

I disagree with your above comment. There was no way things could have worked. Axl fucked over the other members. By a legal move of doubtful moral he legally 'quit' the band to take over the name etc. Then he gave his bandmates a new contract to sign under which they were denoted to merely his employees. This move alone by itself was so fucked up that there was nothing he could do to make things work after that.

Are we discussing the name thing again now? It's not like Slash and Duff left just after that happened.

Axl explained why he did that. Not wanting to lose the band name if someone died and all that.

Slash - “I was given a contract to join his new band. It took about 24 hours before I decided: ‘I think this is the end of the line.”

Axl's excuse wass lamer than a 7 year old's excuse for not doing their homework. Not wanting to lose the GNR name doesn't mean you have to fuck over your bandmates nor does it mean that you have to take full control of the band.

[Rovim]

Of course it is not GNR mostly because Slash , Duff and Izzy are missing.

BUT (and this is a big but) Axl made the worst choices he could possibly make to replace those members. The songs in 2001 sounded nothing like they should. And this had to do with the members. A band that suited the material more than those guys could have generated more positive feelings towards nuGNR and maybe in combination with a few albums since then and making amends with Slash (on a personal level), it could have been considered a legitimate new era of GNR.

Still, if Axl was satisfied with where Slash wanted to take the band musically at the time, I think there could have been a way to make something work between them.

I think that Axl should have used another name considering his intentions were to depart from the classic GNR sound. Because this was not really an evolution but rather a radical departure from the past influences and a creation of a completely new concept of a band and music.

I disagree with your above comment. There was no way things could have worked. Axl fucked over the other members. By a legal move of doubtful moral he legally 'quit' the band to take over the name etc. Then he gave his bandmates a new contract to sign under which they were denoted to merely his employees. This move alone by itself was so fucked up that there was nothing he could do to make things work after that.

Are we discussing the name thing again now? It's not like Slash and Duff left just after that happened.

Axl explained why he did that. Not wanting to lose the band name if someone died and all that.

Slash - “I was given a contract to join his new band. It took about 24 hours before I decided: ‘I think this is the end of the line.”

Axl's excuse wass lamer than a 7 year old's excuse for not doing their homework. Not wanting to lose the GNR name doesn't mean you have to fuck over your bandmates nor does it mean that you have to take full control of the band.

If you want to talk just about that and how Axl fucked all of them over, then go ahead and do it. Not really interested in talking about that.

So he didn't have to, but he did and now here we are. Like I said, if you believe Slash and Duff and not Axl's explanation it's just as valid. To me, it doesn't really matter why he did it or how. We don't know for sure what really happened there anyway.

All I know is that he got the name, which he came up with, at least partially, and I wouldn't prefer anyone else owning it. I'm fine with him owning it, I just wish he would do more with it.

You've only adressed the name point and not anything else on my post which was just a reply to what you said. I thought this thread was broader then just the name issue.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Rovim

[SoulMonster]

Not wanting to lose the GNR name doesn't mean you have to fuck over your bandmates nor does it mean that you have to take full control of the band.

Nor does it in any way affect the legitimacy of the current lineup being named 'Guns N' Roses'.

Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean the band must be called something else. It is not up to you to name other peoples' bands. The whole concept of people refusing to acknowledge that the band is Guns N' Roses just because they don't like certain members leaving or the current music, is nothing but immature and reminds me of how young children in general fights the dawning realization that they can't control the world and that everything doesn't revolve around them.

[Johnny Drama]

Any lineup that show they can actually write, record and release music of their own. To me the last lineup that had any legitimacy ended with Bucket's departure. It's been in limbo ever since and will continue to be so until we hear something new. Personally I'm not especially enthused to hear a DJ Ashba/Bumblefoot record but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

Why? Did you see them live?

[Guest NGOG]

I approve of all incarnations of GNR to date. The old band for obvious reasons, the avant-garde band at the turn of the century which authored my favourite GNR record and the current incarnation which has delivered unparalleled live performances. My biggest craving post-Chinese Democracy, as was the general consensus of the online community in early 2009, was that Axl once again tour and I feel he has satisfied that with the best live ensemble possible. I would not alter anything as it stands. The Chinese Democracy band existed more for studio purposes and it seems we will hear more of their efforts. Axl's vocal struggles aside, the GNR live act is pretty faultless besides the odd Dj blunder which he masks through a great sense of showmanship.

[rosehudson]

The only line up I would really care to hear record together (and properly not in Axls cut and paste fasion) would be:

Robin, Buckethead, Frank and Tommy or:

Slash, Duff, Matt and Izzy

With Teddy on keys instead of Dizzy

I know it say old members excluded but these are the only two line ups I've enjoyed 100% in studio and live (and ofcourse the AFD lineup but I prefer Matt to Steve, sue me)

[DieselDaisy]

Not wanting to lose the GNR name doesn't mean you have to fuck over your bandmates nor does it mean that you have to take full control of the band.

Nor does it in any way affect the legitimacy of the current lineup being named 'Guns N' Roses'.

Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean the band must be called something else. It is not up to you to name other peoples' bands. The whole concept of people refusing to acknowledge that the band is Guns N' Roses just because they don't like certain members leaving or the current music, is nothing but immature and reminds me of how young children in general fights the dawning realization that they can't control the world and that everything doesn't revolve around them.

I do not agree at all: I do not see it as immature in the slightest. I freely except the fact that Axl obtained the name c. 1992 and could hypthotically recruit the Spice Girls if he wanted to and would legally still be entitled to call it, 'Guns N' Roses'. This is legalistic and factually. I also agree that I have no say in Axl's decision making. But when I see this band live or play Chinese Democracy, I know, deep down, that this is not Guns N' Roses. Just like, Thin Lizzy were not Thin Lizzy without Phil (thankfully that band have now dropped the Lizzy name). 'Guns N' Roses' does not resonate on any level for me when it is applied to the 2009-13 band.