doakes Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I don't see the point anymore in officially announcing "this guy's in" or "this guy's out."I feel it's asinine to keep re-recording the unheard material, just to keep it up to date with the current touring lineup.Why don't they use "members" past and present more so as studio musicians or contributors and credit them individually as such. (ie Dave Navarro, Gary Sunshine)As opposed to calling it a traditional band, and having guys waiting around to make music, fielding questions on new releases--- Just call in whoever as needed (Brian May)No need for permanent members if they aren't releasing their music. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 No need for permanent members if they aren't releasing their music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvH Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 No shit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anguyen92 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 It's not like a band being a brand is a bad thing as long as you are proud of it like Mr. Bruce Dickinson says. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Black Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 It's more of a joke really. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysteron Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I don't see the point anymore in officially announcing "this guy's in" or "this guy's out."I feel it's asinine to keep re-recording the unheard material, just to keep it up to date with the current touring lineup.Why don't they use "members" past and present more so as studio musicians or contributors and credit them individually as such. (ie Dave Navarro, Gary Sunshine)As opposed to calling it a traditional band, and having guys waiting around to make music, fieldingquestions on new releases--- Just call in whoever as needed (Brian May)No need for permanent members if they aren't releasing their music.Hey, this is a good thread. Witty title and interesting subject.Ever since Get In The Ring, I always had this idea of Guns being a circus with Axl as the ringmaster.To be honest, I trust Axl's judgement when it comes to GN'R, and I am open to any input from any musicians anywhere for future releases.I like the whole random set up they have, it makes it more exciting. But, there needs to be more album releases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinyrobot Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Well, it is... It's been functioning like that for some time now... its just that Axl doesn't talk openly about it, but if you remember that huge concert in Germany in 2006, which was televised, the way the credits were shown before the concert started, band members names made it obvious that Axl is the only star and main attraction of the band.I don't think it's wrong to see it that way. Guns N' Roses stopped being a band to become a company when they got their first record deal and sold millions and millions of albums. It is a corporation now and with most original members out of it, the brand and legacy it is all that is left. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 It became a money machine in 2009. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysteron Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 It became a money machine in 2009.No, it became a money machine when AFD was released.The money now is with touring rather than album releases, it is just a sign of the times. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-GenerationX Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I would agree with this. The fact that its shoulder shrug city whenever someone leaves and they just plug the next guy in supports this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) It became a money machine in 2009.No, it became a money machine when AFD was released.The money now is with touring rather than album releases, it is just a sign of the times.I seriously doubt they released AFD to make money. AFD made them famous and rich but they were not doing it to be famous and rich. I don't know if you understand what I'm trying to say.Difference with the last 5 years is that they're currently doing what they're doing for money only. I mean, from a business perspective, I don't see any problem with it. I would do the same if I were in the position to control the band's decisions. Edited October 8, 2014 by Nosaj Thing 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinyrobot Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Oh Lord, so turns out that GN'R was a charity ORG all the time......... Now I understand why they picked a poor brazilian family to feed and protect .... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maynard Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 so, they knew AFD would sell millions of copies before relasing it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysteron Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 It became a money machine in 2009.No, it became a money machine when AFD was released.The money now is with touring rather than album releases, it is just a sign of the times.I seriously doubt they released AFD to make money. AFD made them famous and rich but they were not doing it to be famous and rich. I don't know if you understand what I'm trying to say.Difference with the last 5 years is that they're currently doing what they're doing for money only. I mean, from a business perspective, I don't see any problem with it. I would do the same if I were in the position to control the band's decisions.It is only when you have money, that it isn't about the money 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 so, they knew AFD would sell millions of copies before relasing it?I imagine Axl writing Sweet Child O' Mine and thinking the millions of dollars they would make for it. It is only when you have money, that it isn't about the moneyIf it isn't about money then what it is about? I would like to know. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmapelian Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Since axl dissolved the initial partnership, yes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysteron Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 so, they knew AFD would sell millions of copies before relasing it?I imagine Axl writing Sweet Child O' Mine and thinking the millions of dollars they would make for it. It is only when you have money, that it isn't about the moneyIf it isn't about money then what it is about? I would like to know.I do not know. It was you that said it was not about the money 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magisme Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 How about just end the charade and retire the name? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maynard Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 How about just end the charade and retire the name?You just made some thousands of South Americans really angry with that post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinyrobot Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Wow, I have this SPECTACULAR idea of opening a shop to sell computers but I hope I do not make ANY money out of it because what would people in the barrio think?? That I am doing it for the money???? NO WAY!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magisme Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 How about just end the charade and retire the name?You just made some thousands of South Americans really angry with that post.They're lucky I don't come down there and re-colonize that bitch. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maynard Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 How about just end the charade and retire the name?You just made some thousands of South Americans really angry with that post.They're lucky I don't come down there and re-colonize that bitch. Very racism. Don't like this stuffs. jajajajajja!!!! xD 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I don't care what Axl calls the band, nor do I really care who is in it.I just wish my favorite singer of all time would release music every so often. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patience 4 Axl Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 The Axl Rose Band wouldn't be as lucrative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I do not know. It was you that said it was not about the money You should, though, because I only said that when they first started. You, however, said that "it's only when you have money, that isn't about the money" - my question was related to that. What is it about then? Please, explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.