Ultimate Guitar: Reunion with Axl, Slash, Duff, Richard, Frank

[wasted]

i think the reality is the majority will accept it and get excited to see Slash, Duff and Axl again.

I personally only get excited for the og 5. If not, CD II hybrid rollercoaster!

[DieselDaisy]

The fact people discuss this only in terms of the 'majority' is revealing: it would be a shame-faced cash grab, a trotting out of the 'hits' for casuals.

[wasted]

It should be the 5 but what if Izzy doesn't want to?

[DieselDaisy]

As I said, get Gilby. At least you can argue it is a reunion of the ''old band'' if not the ''Appetite band''.

[kogun]

I'm not going if Ferrer and Fortus are onstage.

[wasted]

Gilby didn't write on UYI either so I'm not that bothered. If it's not the 5 I'm not that bothered. I like them all. Gilby makes sense. Matt is an option.

Is there something about making concessions to Axl. Maybe with a view to releasing CD II. Axl might not be that interested in a reunion, just wants a touring line up that he likes.

[kogun]

it has to be the original 5 + gilby and matt in case izzy and adler have problems.

[Len Cnut]

The way i see it is if it ain't Axl, Slash, Izzy, Duff (drummer bits interchangeable but only cuz he's a mad crackhead) then sod it, don't do it. I mean look, the idea is wanting a reunion of the band right? Quite frankly the notion that just Slash and Axl are Guns n Roses is as bullshit as the idea that certain NuGnR fans used to kick around that just Axl was Guns n Roses. Izzy to me is a major major major part of it, in terms of the sound and the creative aspect of songwriting and...just in all ways. The only reason I'm willing to forgo Adler is because firstly he's a mad fucker and secondly, across the history of GnR Sorum is a pretty fundamental aspect. Gilby, God bless him, was just someone who stood in Izzy shoes, not having a go at him, I'm sure he's a great guitar player and all that but in terms of tangible contribution all he did was go out on tour with em for a couple of years, he didn't write nothing I'm pretty sure.

Why is it GnR fans are always so readily prepared to accept second best? Oh it's close enough, we'll just squint up at the stage and imagine!

Izzy was always the coolest, simply because he was so effortless about it. Axl is way too pedantic and talks too much to be proper cool, in the Steve McQueen sense of the word, Slash loses points due to his penchant for Metal...Izzy was just brilliant, black waist coat over the shirt with rolled up sleeves, the body language of a bag of dirty laundry, a loose rhythm playing tunester that looked like something between Johnny Thunders and Keith Richards.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Len B'stard

[wasted]

How many GNR fans won't go see Axl and Slash though? Duff will do it.

Izzy should be but he has been leary of big tours/lead singers for years.

Adler is a mess.

Once you get past that and into reality. When there's money on the line and fans who will go crazy for Axl and Slash. Why not? Better than a poke in the eye with a scanted candle?

[Len Cnut]

The reason for that is a lot of GnR fans aren't fans in that massive sense of the word, a great many are just sort of Greatest Hits jockers, thats my feeling. They have a core of fans and that but generally speaking, especially the younger generation, who never really were around when there was a real Guns n Roses so they couldn't give a monkeys, it's all to do with iconography and not a lot to do with the sound of a band.

Perhaps thats it, perhaps people just aren't that fond of GnR as a band. I mean can you imagine another big band like, say The Stone Roses or The Beatles (not that those two are at comparable) doing a reunion and their going, y'know, nevermind George Harrison, we'll bung Clapton there and call it a Beatles reunion. Or Stone Roses going, Mani can't make it so we'll have Bonehead in a Mani costume, the fans'd lose their minds.

[Randy Jesus]

The reason for that is a lot of GnR fans aren't fans in that massive sense of the word, a great many are just sort of Greatest Hits jockers, thats my feeling. They have a core of fans and that but generally speaking, especially the younger generation, who never really were around when there was a real Guns n Roses so they couldn't give a monkeys, it's all to do with iconography and not a lot to do with the sound of a band.

Perhaps thats it, perhaps people just aren't that fond of GnR as a band. I mean can you imagine another big band like, say The Stone Roses or The Beatles (not that those two are at comparable) doing a reunion and their going, y'know, nevermind George Harrison, we'll bung Clapton there and call it a Beatles reunion. Or Stone Roses going, Mani can't make it so we'll have Bonehead in a Mani costume, the fans'd lose their minds.

I never really cared that much for George Harrison. He pretty much was overrated.

[ludurigan]

I agree with this.

I dont think Izzy is as important to the live performance as people make out.

He has almost zero stage precense for me... i like the guy, and everything hes contributed to GNR cannot be underestimated.. but in terms of a live gig.. he isnt the deal breaker for me.

His guitars were never turned up that high, at post-1988. While it would be ideal, to have the guy who contributed so much to GNR be included, I could live with Richard or Gilby on second guitar duties. Same with Ferrer instead of Adler - especially if Adler is too unreliable of a person to take on tour. Although I would love for Sorum to be included

its not about stage presence

(by the way izzy has a great stage presence, only a fool would say he doesnt have stage presence)

its is about how he plays the guitar

its about the music that comes out of his guitar

of course that you and some people may not care about that

but a lot of us do

But is it really deal breaking for you? Would you not go or take interest if Izzy weren't there? I know plenty of people who didn't take interest when Slash wasn't there. Would Izzy have that same effect? I'm not so sure.

of course it is

no izzy, no GNR

no axl, no GNR

no slash, no GNR

you need at least these 3 to have the real sound of guns n roses

but you will only have GNR with the five guys

[Len Cnut]

The reason for that is a lot of GnR fans aren't fans in that massive sense of the word, a great many are just sort of Greatest Hits jockers, thats my feeling. They have a core of fans and that but generally speaking, especially the younger generation, who never really were around when there was a real Guns n Roses so they couldn't give a monkeys, it's all to do with iconography and not a lot to do with the sound of a band.

Perhaps thats it, perhaps people just aren't that fond of GnR as a band. I mean can you imagine another big band like, say The Stone Roses or The Beatles (not that those two are at comparable) doing a reunion and their going, y'know, nevermind George Harrison, we'll bung Clapton there and call it a Beatles reunion. Or Stone Roses going, Mani can't make it so we'll have Bonehead in a Mani costume, the fans'd lose their minds.

I never really cared that much for George Harrison. He pretty much was overrated.

You can't not rate George Harrison and still rate The Beatles, his contribution was huge, the lead work, a lot of the riffs, a handful of their classic songs etc was all down to George.

[Lies They Tell]

I mean look, the idea is wanting a reunion of the band right?

I don't know if that is actually the idea. I think the idea is to do what's best for GNR. Reuniting with someone as unreliable as Steven Adler is not what's best for GNR. Dunno about Izzy. Depends on how much Izzy actually wants to do it I guess.

[Len Cnut]

I mean look, the idea is wanting a reunion of the band right?

I don't know if that is actually the idea. I think the idea is to do what's best for GNR. Reuniting with someone as unreliable as Steven Adler is not what's best for GNR. Dunno about Izzy. Depends on how much Izzy actually wants to do it I guess.

Well if you want whats best for GnR and half of members of GnR aren't up for it or viable then surely whats best for GnR is to draw a line under it?

[Słash]

I emailed Richard Fortus and asked if these rumors were true... his response:

4tus@richardfortusonline.com

"God, i hope so! That would be awesome"

There are 2 kinds of rumors, one is the whole original band reuniting and another one is Fortus and Ferrer being on board, so his reply referred to which one, I guess for him the later would be better.

[Randy Jesus]

The reason for that is a lot of GnR fans aren't fans in that massive sense of the word, a great many are just sort of Greatest Hits jockers, thats my feeling. They have a core of fans and that but generally speaking, especially the younger generation, who never really were around when there was a real Guns n Roses so they couldn't give a monkeys, it's all to do with iconography and not a lot to do with the sound of a band.

Perhaps thats it, perhaps people just aren't that fond of GnR as a band. I mean can you imagine another big band like, say The Stone Roses or The Beatles (not that those two are at comparable) doing a reunion and their going, y'know, nevermind George Harrison, we'll bung Clapton there and call it a Beatles reunion. Or Stone Roses going, Mani can't make it so we'll have Bonehead in a Mani costume, the fans'd lose their minds.

I never really cared that much for George Harrison. He pretty much was overrated.

You can't not rate George Harrison and still rate The Beatles, his contribution was huge, the lead work, a lot of the riffs, a handful of their classic songs etc was all down to George.

His best guitar work was actually Eric Clapton.

[Lies They Tell]

I mean look, the idea is wanting a reunion of the band right?

I don't know if that is actually the idea. I think the idea is to do what's best for GNR. Reuniting with someone as unreliable as Steven Adler is not what's best for GNR. Dunno about Izzy. Depends on how much Izzy actually wants to do it I guess.

Well if you want whats best for GnR and half of members of GnR aren't up for it or viable then surely whats best for GnR is to draw a line under it?

That's a matter of opinion.

[Len Cnut]

The reason for that is a lot of GnR fans aren't fans in that massive sense of the word, a great many are just sort of Greatest Hits jockers, thats my feeling. They have a core of fans and that but generally speaking, especially the younger generation, who never really were around when there was a real Guns n Roses so they couldn't give a monkeys, it's all to do with iconography and not a lot to do with the sound of a band.

Perhaps thats it, perhaps people just aren't that fond of GnR as a band. I mean can you imagine another big band like, say The Stone Roses or The Beatles (not that those two are at comparable) doing a reunion and their going, y'know, nevermind George Harrison, we'll bung Clapton there and call it a Beatles reunion. Or Stone Roses going, Mani can't make it so we'll have Bonehead in a Mani costume, the fans'd lose their minds.

I never really cared that much for George Harrison. He pretty much was overrated.

You can't not rate George Harrison and still rate The Beatles, his contribution was huge, the lead work, a lot of the riffs, a handful of their classic songs etc was all down to George.

His best guitar work was actually Eric Clapton.

Yes yes, Clapton was on The White Album, we know, he weren't fuckin' all of it though.

I mean look, the idea is wanting a reunion of the band right?

I don't know if that is actually the idea. I think the idea is to do what's best for GNR. Reuniting with someone as unreliable as Steven Adler is not what's best for GNR. Dunno about Izzy. Depends on how much Izzy actually wants to do it I guess.

Well if you want whats best for GnR and half of members of GnR aren't up for it or viable then surely whats best for GnR is to draw a line under it?

That's a matter of opinion.

So we're just basically back to NuGnR again aren't we? Which was the problem that has led GnR to their current level of disrepute and ridicule, this on-going lack of respect for what the band were as a musical and creative unit for the sake of a few profitting from the brand. It appears that anything is acceptable onstage under the name 'Guns n Roses' except for the people that were Guns n Roses i.e. that made the music that made it so me and you heard of them and are sitting here having this discussion today.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Len B'stard

[wasted]

The reason for that is a lot of GnR fans aren't fans in that massive sense of the word, a great many are just sort of Greatest Hits jockers, thats my feeling. They have a core of fans and that but generally speaking, especially the younger generation, who never really were around when there was a real Guns n Roses so they couldn't give a monkeys, it's all to do with iconography and not a lot to do with the sound of a band.

Perhaps thats it, perhaps people just aren't that fond of GnR as a band. I mean can you imagine another big band like, say The Stone Roses or The Beatles (not that those two are at comparable) doing a reunion and their going, y'know, nevermind George Harrison, we'll bung Clapton there and call it a Beatles reunion. Or Stone Roses going, Mani can't make it so we'll have Bonehead in a Mani costume, the fans'd lose their minds.

The people who bought AFD and UYI arent all rock n roll hipsters or metalheads. What made them huge was those huge cheesy ballads with MTV videos and crossing over to the pop audience. Like you said the icons of Axl and Slash. That's what sold the 100 million records. That mainstream audience don't care about Izzy or Steven. It's more nostalgia or tickets to the game in the office. It's all about them isn't it, their memories, their great seats, then take loads of pics of the first three songs then go for a beer, stay until SCOM then leave to beat the traffic.

[DieselDaisy]

Apparently gnr is the only band which isn't a band. ''Just get Slash up there for the average joes''. I wonder if they play that Guns N' Roses classic, 'Every Rose Has Its Thorn'?

And George Harrison is probably the most lyrically brilliant guitar soloist to have ever walked the planet. Listen to the solo in ''Something''; it is absolutely beautiful, like a little song within song. And the rest of the song is not bad also as his songwriting was better than Lennon and McCartney from 1968 onward. All Things Must Pass is the greatest of all their solo work, a masterpiece.

Certainly my favourite Beatle.

Edited November 18, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[wasted]

The reason for that is a lot of GnR fans aren't fans in that massive sense of the word, a great many are just sort of Greatest Hits jockers, thats my feeling. They have a core of fans and that but generally speaking, especially the younger generation, who never really were around when there was a real Guns n Roses so they couldn't give a monkeys, it's all to do with iconography and not a lot to do with the sound of a band.

Perhaps thats it, perhaps people just aren't that fond of GnR as a band. I mean can you imagine another big band like, say The Stone Roses or The Beatles (not that those two are at comparable) doing a reunion and their going, y'know, nevermind George Harrison, we'll bung Clapton there and call it a Beatles reunion. Or Stone Roses going, Mani can't make it so we'll have Bonehead in a Mani costume, the fans'd lose their minds.

I never really cared that much for George Harrison. He pretty much was overrated.

You can't not rate George Harrison and still rate The Beatles, his contribution was huge, the lead work, a lot of the riffs, a handful of their classic songs etc was all down to George.

His best guitar work was actually Eric Clapton.

Yes yes, Clapton was on The White Album, we know, he weren't fuckin' all of it though.

I mean look, the idea is wanting a reunion of the band right?

I don't know if that is actually the idea. I think the idea is to do what's best for GNR. Reuniting with someone as unreliable as Steven Adler is not what's best for GNR. Dunno about Izzy. Depends on how much Izzy actually wants to do it I guess.

Well if you want whats best for GnR and half of members of GnR aren't up for it or viable then surely whats best for GnR is to draw a line under it?

That's a matter of opinion.

So we're just basically back to NuGnR again aren't we? Which was the problem that has led GnR to their current level of disrepute and ridicule, this on-going lack of respect for what the band were as a musical and creative unit for the sake of a few profitting from the brand. It appears that anything is acceptable onstage under the name 'Guns n Roses' except for the people that were Guns n Roses i.e. that made the music that made it so me and you heard of them and are sitting here having this discussion today.

That's not it unfortunately. If Slash had stayed people would have accepted GNR without Izzy. It's just Slash left and people can't accept it. They would have been ACDC or the Stones, hugely successful with a storied past. But without Slash hardly anyone will accept it as GNR.

[Len Cnut]

The reason for that is a lot of GnR fans aren't fans in that massive sense of the word, a great many are just sort of Greatest Hits jockers, thats my feeling. They have a core of fans and that but generally speaking, especially the younger generation, who never really were around when there was a real Guns n Roses so they couldn't give a monkeys, it's all to do with iconography and not a lot to do with the sound of a band.

Perhaps thats it, perhaps people just aren't that fond of GnR as a band. I mean can you imagine another big band like, say The Stone Roses or The Beatles (not that those two are at comparable) doing a reunion and their going, y'know, nevermind George Harrison, we'll bung Clapton there and call it a Beatles reunion. Or Stone Roses going, Mani can't make it so we'll have Bonehead in a Mani costume, the fans'd lose their minds.

The people who bought AFD and UYI arent all rock n roll hipsters or metalheads. What made them huge was those huge cheesy ballads with MTV videos and crossing over to the pop audience. Like you said the icons of Axl and Slash. That's what sold the 100 million records. That mainstream audience don't care about Izzy or Steven. It's more nostalgia or tickets to the game in the office. It's all about them isn't it, their memories, their great seats, then take loads of pics of the first three songs then go for a beer, stay until SCOM then leave to beat the traffic.

Yeah but why cater to dilletantes? This sounds awfully snobbish but the people that fall in love with you over your pop hits are not fans of the sort that are gonna last. I don't think you have to be a rock n roll hipster to actually appreciate music, as opposed to like, be in love with some kind of idea in your head about pretty looking young boys.

[Lies They Tell]

The reason for that is a lot of GnR fans aren't fans in that massive sense of the word, a great many are just sort of Greatest Hits jockers, thats my feeling. They have a core of fans and that but generally speaking, especially the younger generation, who never really were around when there was a real Guns n Roses so they couldn't give a monkeys, it's all to do with iconography and not a lot to do with the sound of a band.

Perhaps thats it, perhaps people just aren't that fond of GnR as a band. I mean can you imagine another big band like, say The Stone Roses or The Beatles (not that those two are at comparable) doing a reunion and their going, y'know, nevermind George Harrison, we'll bung Clapton there and call it a Beatles reunion. Or Stone Roses going, Mani can't make it so we'll have Bonehead in a Mani costume, the fans'd lose their minds.

I never really cared that much for George Harrison. He pretty much was overrated.

You can't not rate George Harrison and still rate The Beatles, his contribution was huge, the lead work, a lot of the riffs, a handful of their classic songs etc was all down to George.

His best guitar work was actually Eric Clapton.

Yes yes, Clapton was on The White Album, we know, he weren't fuckin' all of it though.

I mean look, the idea is wanting a reunion of the band right?

I don't know if that is actually the idea. I think the idea is to do what's best for GNR. Reuniting with someone as unreliable as Steven Adler is not what's best for GNR. Dunno about Izzy. Depends on how much Izzy actually wants to do it I guess.

Well if you want whats best for GnR and half of members of GnR aren't up for it or viable then surely whats best for GnR is to draw a line under it?

That's a matter of opinion.

So we're just basically back to NuGnR again aren't we? Which was the problem that has led GnR to their current level of disrepute and ridicule, this on-going lack of respect for what the band were as a musical and creative unit for the sake of a few profitting from the brand. It appears that anything is acceptable onstage under the name 'Guns n Roses' except for the people that were Guns n Roses i.e. that made the music that made it so me and you heard of them and are sitting here having this discussion today.

Yes, we're back to the so called NuGnR. It was a NuGnR already in the UYI days. The difference compared to the last lineup is that most people will be happy with Slash and Duff back in the band and don't give a crap about the rest. Only the hardcore purist will be disappointed. Of course it's possible that they'll play some shows with Izzy and Steven as quests. So maybe there's something for the purists too. I kinda doubt they'll be permanent members though.

[Len Cnut]

Whats being suggested here is basically that, musically speaking, GnR weren't nothing special and it don't really matter who made or is playing the songs, as long as you've got the vocalist and Slash still remembers his lead work.