Songs from CD that the reunion lineup should play

[Apollo]

set list:

WTTJ

ISE

*Dizzy Solo

Raw Power

NT

*Pitman Solo

Crucify the Dead with Pitman taking lead vocals and Dizzy on Synth. Axl backing vocals.

Sorry

*RANT*

Mr. Brownstone

*Frank Solo

SCOM

Patience

NR

Your Crazy

Rocket Queen

*Rant

KOHD

*Fortus Solo

Live and Let Die

Better

*Duff Solo

YCBM

*Slash Solo

PC

Nothing to Say

That is absolutely dreadful.

Six solos, a rant and a song sang by Pittman.

Plus the snooze fest that Heavens Door and Live and Let Die have become.

I wouldn't go to that show for free.

[SoulMonster]

All and any of it. If Slash isn't willing to play GN'R songs he shouldn't come back to GN'R. Period, VR is not needed because it ain't Guns N' Roses material.

Fuck that. Absolutely fuck that and it better be a fucking joke cause you can't be serious.

If Slash won't play the whole discography of GN'R then he has nothing to do in the band.

All and any of it. If Slash isn't willing to play GN'R songs he shouldn't come back to GN'R. Period, VR is not needed because it ain't Guns N' Roses material.

You have to be able to accept the fact that some people do not regard Chinese Democracy material ''Guns N' Roses material'' either?

Who says he isn't accepting that fact? He simply holds a different opinion.

[DieselDaisy]

All and any of it. If Slash isn't willing to play GN'R songs he shouldn't come back to GN'R. Period, VR is not needed because it ain't Guns N' Roses material.

Fuck that. Absolutely fuck that and it better be a fucking joke cause you can't be serious.

If Slash won't play the whole discography of GN'R then he has nothing to do in the band.

Agreed. Slash should be willing to play the entire discography of Guns N' Roses: Appetite, Lies, Illusion and Spaghetti.

Edited December 2, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

I can belt out a drunken karaoke rendition of Suspicious Minds in my local pub and call myself ''Elvis''. Does not mean I'm Elvis!

No, and there would be absoluetly no reason to believe you are Elvis, either. But when a band called Guns N' Roses releases a record, then that record would have been released by the band Guns N' Roses . You can't use your own personal distate for the particular lineup behind that record, or your dislike for the record itself, or whatever, to ignore the fact that it was and is a Guns N' Roses record.

Yes, but the difference is that you're not Elvis, you aren't related in any way to any Elvis project and you don't own his name either. Meanwhile Axl Rose created the name Guns N' Roses before he came to be in a band with Slash, Duff or Steven. He also promoted, recorded and wrote under that name along with them and Izzy for a long time, but during that period Adler got fired, Slash, Duff and Izzy quit and Axl carried on with the name (something they agreed upon before they even got big). If you have a problem with Chinese Democracy being a Guns N' Roses album why don't you call Slash and Duff and ask them why did they signed of the name to Axl.

You can say that about any new gnr member outside Axl and Dizzy!

It is a con job anyway. The band 'Guns N' Roses' that began in 1985 was effectively folded in late 1995. The band masquerading as 'Guns N' Roses' since then (1996-present) are really a completely new legal entity which just so happens to carry the same name as the prior band. Axl's power grab was akin to when a business files for bankruptcy and then quickly sets up shop again, i.e. a swizz, a con job.

Rigt on cue! The old technicality that people throw out as a last resort when their belief that Chinese Democracy wasn't released by GN'R, is under attack.

[SoulMonster]

Really when did Frank and Fortus quit? And whatever was of Pitman? Funny you mention that the new entity was made in 1995 when Slash left in 1996 and Duff and Matt in 97 but alright, even if it is a new legal entity, this new legal entity is still Guns N' Roses why you may ask? Because the owner of the name says so. Sadly you don't get a say, just as your neighbors don't get a say if you divorce and marry another woman and decide to have sex with her in the same bed where your wife used to sleep. They might be angry because they liked her better than you, but it is still your house your rules, your bed and your new wife. If we go for that account Guns N' Roses never released anything because they only lasted a few day before Tracii Guns and the others left and were replaced by Slash, Duff and Adler.

Con job. Swizz. You can pretend it is GN'R if you like but I certainly won't and I think more of the world is in agreement with me than you.

I am quite sure most people would accept that CD was a Guns N' Roses record if asked. But yes, they would also probaby say that what we have now is not "proper" Guns N' Roses, in the sense that it has deviated too far from what the band was in its heyday. But as for disputing that the band is really "Guns N' Roses" and that CD is a GN'R record? Nah. Most people wouldn't do that. And here's why: It takes a lot of personal commitment to refuse what is obviously the truth. For people to fool themselves into denying obvious facts requires a lot of invested emotions, and most people don't have that in GN'R. Only really hardcore reunionionsts or people very butthurt over what has happened with GN'R, would seek the emotional escape and intellectual loss of renouncing CD and the current lineup as actually belonging to GN'R.

[AlterL]

But no one is getting conned, that is just not true. You go to see a GN'R show and you get GN'R maybe not the most popular lineup, but that doesn't mean that it stops being Guns N' Roses. If the majority of the world agrees with you (personally I don't think the majority of the world cares that much) that means nothing. There was a time when people in Germany really believed that Hitler was the best thing for Germany, but now I think its fair to say that they were wrong, countless of ideas and concepts over history have been believed by majorities, that doesn't make them right or true.

You want to use the fact that a reunion might be happening as proof that Axl doesn't see the latest embodiments of the band as Guns N' Roses, but you offer no proof of that. You claim that all the members are out but Dizzy, Frank, Fortus and Pitman haven't said a word and for what little has come out of their mouths indicates they're still in (talking about Fortus, Dizzy and Frank here) so why would he keep any of them if they weren't part of his band? If they were as you say illegitimate? Now you're also forgetting that there seemed to be plans already for 2016 before DJ Ashba left, meaning Axl had plans that included the latest lineup minus Ron Thal. Now him leaving probably did change a lot of what was happening inside the band. So at the end of the day I think is sure to say that Axl is not reuniting because all of the sudden he stopped caring about this lineup and that is more likely that he just needed a new bass player and guitar player at the same time that he had made amends with Slash and Duff.

[DieselDaisy]

I can belt out a drunken karaoke rendition of Suspicious Minds in my local pub and call myself ''Elvis''. Does not mean I'm Elvis!

No, and there would be absoluetly no reason to believe you are Elvis, either. But when a band called Guns N' Roses releases a record, then that record would have been released by the band Guns N' Roses . You can't use your own personal distate for the particular lineup behind that record, or your dislike for the record itself, or whatever, to ignore the fact that it was and is a Guns N' Roses record.

Yes, but the difference is that you're not Elvis, you aren't related in any way to any Elvis project and you don't own his name either. Meanwhile Axl Rose created the name Guns N' Roses before he came to be in a band with Slash, Duff or Steven. He also promoted, recorded and wrote under that name along with them and Izzy for a long time, but during that period Adler got fired, Slash, Duff and Izzy quit and Axl carried on with the name (something they agreed upon before they even got big). If you have a problem with Chinese Democracy being a Guns N' Roses album why don't you call Slash and Duff and ask them why did they signed of the name to Axl.

You can say that about any new gnr member outside Axl and Dizzy!

It is a con job anyway. The band 'Guns N' Roses' that began in 1985 was effectively folded in late 1995. The band masquerading as 'Guns N' Roses' since then (1996-present) are really a completely new legal entity which just so happens to carry the same name as the prior band. Axl's power grab was akin to when a business files for bankruptcy and then quickly sets up shop again, i.e. a swizz, a con job.

Rigt on cue! The old technicality that people throw out as a last resort when their belief that Chinese Democracy wasn't released by GN'R, is under attack.

It is a fact, an inconvenient fact seemingly for some. The band that began life in spring 1985, responsible for the hit albums Appetite for Destruction and Use Your Illusion, legally folded 31st December 1995. The band that began 1st January 1996 was a completely new entity.

It is legalised fakery, the musical equivalent of a dodgy cockney selling Prada knock-offs. ''made in China'', from a London market stall.

But no one is getting conned, that is just not true. You go to see a GN'R show and you get GN'R maybe not the most popular lineup, but that doesn't mean that it stops being Guns N' Roses. If the majority of the world agrees with you (personally I don't think the majority of the world cares that much) that means nothing. There was a time when people in Germany really believed that Hitler was the best thing for Germany, but now I think its fair to say that they were wrong, countless of ideas and concepts over history have been believed by majorities, that doesn't make them right or true. You want to use the fact that a reunion might be happening as proof that Axl doesn't see the latest embodiments of the band as Guns N' Roses, but you offer no proof of that. You claim that all the members are out but Dizzy, Frank, Fortus and Pitman haven't said a word and for what little has come out of their mouths indicates they're still in (talking about Fortus, Dizzy and Frank here) so why would he keep any of them if they weren't part of his band? If they were as you say illegitimate? Now you're also forgetting that there seemed to be plans already for 2016 before DJ Ashba left, meaning Axl had plans that included the latest lineup minus Ron Thal. Now him leaving probably did change a lot of what was happening inside the band. So at the end of the day I think is sure to say that Axl is not reuniting because all of the sudden he stopped caring about this lineup and that is more likely that he just needed a new bass player and guitar player at the same time that he had made amends with Slash and Duff.

Don't know what the latter of your post is about as nobody knows much of anything, but regarding the first point, there are enough casuals at shows who a surprised Slash is not in the band. There were probably a few who picked up Chinese Democracy also. Using the name is a con trick to obtain record company financing and tour support for a group who are an Axl Rose project in all but name. To label that circus as Guns N' Roses is an absolute insult to the group which produced Appetite and Illusion.

PS

About the Elvis thing, I can actually change my name by deed poll to ''Elvis Aaron Presley''. I can buy a jump suit. I can even do a bog standard imitation of his speech and pull some Vegas era shapes. I still however would not be Elvis. Same with Axl's circus, not being Guns.

Edited December 3, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[wasted]

UYI had a different drummer and different touring guitarist than the original 5 that made AFD. Not many seemed bothered touring without Adler or Izzy. I think UYI was also a different partnership to AFD era?

I just think it's something that has happened in rock bands. Stones without Jones. ACDC without Bon. Oasis without Bonehead. Trust GNR to be extreme.

The good thing about CD is is it's not fake in terms of being honest about Axl's feelings about the demise of the band. It's not a fake bluesy hard rock record about street life.

Axl was in a strange situation of having just made it and with a huge advance for a record, but missing a main songwriter and in trying to get the record made Slash left. They seemed to try in 96, they had the Snakepit material around. Axl was trying to write with Tobias.

What is also interesting although Axl got a line up recording the record never came and people were begging a GNR band to tour and put out a record.

So if Axl didn't want to let go, neither did a lot of the fans. GNR is about those songs and people want to go see them live. Axl seemed to give people what they wanted, while trying to make a record that lived up to the name.

I don't think it was a con because people knew but they still wanted to hear those songs live. Axl was the only one who stayed through it all to deliver a show and eventually a album.

The fact that Slash, Izzy and Duff were off living the lives they wanted, releasing solo albums, getting married and having kids always made me think it's what they wanted. So why not let Axl keep the name and tour the hits for the fans, even release another record?

It's almost humble that Axl just wanted to be the singer of GNR and not have his name up in lights as The Axl Rose Band and then he'd be playing GNR classics anyway because that's what people want from him. It's not the romantic original line up but life isn't always perfect and they were always doing something interesting musically with the CD material. So I think the pros far outweigh the cons given the situation. Even now with a possible reunion they can't get Izzy or Steven involved which shows the difficulties with this thing.

[rendestroi95]

Chinese
Better
Street of Dreams
There Was a Time
Madagascar
Sorry
This I Love
Prostitute

Slash would problably fuck up half of the solos, or just give them a more melodic-full-of-bends version, but would be cool anyways

[DieselDaisy]

I just think it's something that has happened in rock bands. Stones without Jones. ACDC without Bon. Oasis without Bonehead. Trust GNR to be extreme.

No it doesn't it. A/ None of the bands you listed have ended up with one original member - heck, the Stones have three still! B/ None of the bands you listed had an original member who launched a Machiavellian power grab (of the name). C/ None of those bands have seen that same original member use the name of his old band for his solo project. Mick Jagger's solo projects were called ''Mick Jagger'', not ''The Rolling Stones''; Keith's was the ''X-Pensive Winos''.

''Nugnr'' are truly unprecedented in their fakery. Perhaps a better analogy is this,

[wasted]

Trust GNR to go extreme. Same thing just more. Ratt are touring with just the drummer now. Simply Red by 96 were just the singer and the name. It's not like it's never happened.

Look at Megadave. That's worse isn't it?

It's not like Axl has been killing it either. He's just toured basically with one album. Respectful.

[DieselDaisy]

Trust GNR to go extreme. Same thing just more. Ratt are touring with just the drummer now. Simply Red by 96 were just the singer and the name. It's not like it's never happened.

Look at Megadave. That's worse isn't it?

It's not like Axl has been killing it either. He's just toured basically with one album. Respectful.

Yes but Guns were never that sort of band.

[Apollo]

I can belt out a drunken karaoke rendition of Suspicious Minds in my local pub and call myself ''Elvis''. Does not mean I'm Elvis!

No, and there would be absoluetly no reason to believe you are Elvis, either. But when a band called Guns N' Roses releases a record, then that record would have been released by the band Guns N' Roses . You can't use your own personal distate for the particular lineup behind that record, or your dislike for the record itself, or whatever, to ignore the fact that it was and is a Guns N' Roses record.

Yes, but the difference is that you're not Elvis, you aren't related in any way to any Elvis project and you don't own his name either. Meanwhile Axl Rose created the name Guns N' Roses before he came to be in a band with Slash, Duff or Steven. He also promoted, recorded and wrote under that name along with them and Izzy for a long time, but during that period Adler got fired, Slash, Duff and Izzy quit and Axl carried on with the name (something they agreed upon before they even got big). If you have a problem with Chinese Democracy being a Guns N' Roses album why don't you call Slash and Duff and ask them why did they signed of the name to Axl.

You can say that about any new gnr member outside Axl and Dizzy!

It is a con job anyway. The band 'Guns N' Roses' that began in 1985 was effectively folded in late 1995. The band masquerading as 'Guns N' Roses' since then (1996-present) are really a completely new legal entity which just so happens to carry the same name as the prior band. Axl's power grab was akin to when a business files for bankruptcy and then quickly sets up shop again, i.e. a swizz, a con job.

Rigt on cue! The old technicality that people throw out as a last resort when their belief that Chinese Democracy wasn't released by GN'R, is under attack.

Do you ever get tired of educating and telling people they are wrong and how they can think?

I'm sure a lot of us would love to hear what Soul's heart and soul thinks about GnR subjects. Is it possible to drop the educator-dictator act and just have a casual chat with people?

Obviously EVERYBODY knows that Chinese democracy was released under the NAME Guns n Roses.

You know what people are saying and what they mean. You are arguing a tiny technicality and not what people actually want to discuss.

Instead of looking for reasons to bash, educate and dictate to people......just chill and chat about all of our favorite rock band.

Just a suggestion.

[wasted]

Trust GNR to go extreme. Same thing just more. Ratt are touring with just the drummer now. Simply Red by 96 were just the singer and the name. It's not like it's never happened.

Look at Megadave. That's worse isn't it?

It's not like Axl has been killing it either. He's just toured basically with one album. Respectful.

Yes but Guns were never that sort of band.

You mean Dave wrote all the songs and the others were never that famous? Kind of. I teally think that early line up sounds better than later versions though.

It's not the same band! And so many different line ups. But it's Dave's band. He's been quite clear about that.

If Dave Elfeson isnt in the band it doesn't seem like Megadeth to me. But it still is. I honestly don't even care, I like a lot if not all Megadeth albums so maybe thats how some are with GNR.

And CD is the ultimate test. What if we change everyone and make an alt metal record? And I like it so I'm like whatever it's just rock record afterall. All the treating line ups like demi gods. Turn around bitch? Really? You deserve to be treated a certain way? You made one perfect record and now life owes you perfection?

I think it has become too common place though. But people pay to see Thin Lizzy without Phil Lynott? The Stranglers too. But what are they going to do live in poverty bevause guy X is dead or a drug addict?

[DieselDaisy]

Trust GNR to go extreme. Same thing just more. Ratt are touring with just the drummer now. Simply Red by 96 were just the singer and the name. It's not like it's never happened.

Look at Megadave. That's worse isn't it?

It's not like Axl has been killing it either. He's just toured basically with one album. Respectful.

Yes but Guns were never that sort of band.

You mean Dave wrote all the songs and the others were never that famous? Kind of. I teally think that early line up sounds better than later versions though.

It's not the same band! And so many different line ups. But it's Dave's band. He's been quite clear about that.

If Dave Elfeson isnt in the band it doesn't seem like Megadeth to me. But it still is. I honestly don't even care, I like a lot if not all Megadeth albums so maybe thats how some are with GNR.

Megadeth were Dave's band just like Motörhead were Lemmy's. That is not to discredit people like Ellefson and Phil Campbell. In a way, Megadeth have always resembled a nugnr situation. I mean they have always been a revolving cast - much like nugnr. Old Guns were a consensual democratic band. Axl was just one cog - an important one in a machine - in a machine. Izzy and Slash and to a lesser degree Duff had equal status and the drummers also played their role.

I think it has become too common place though. But people pay to see Thin Lizzy without Phil Lynott? The Stranglers too. But what are they going to do live in poverty bevause guy X is dead or a drug addict?

Yes, and were roundly pilloried for it by fans and media alike haha! They eventually came to their senses changing their name to Black Star Riders. Very poor analogy!

[wasted]

You accept hybrid line ups of the Stones and all these other bands but not GNR.

GNR isn't in a vacuum, all these other bands do it so why not GNR?

I think though early Megadeth is like early Guns. It's just we buy into the media stuff about certain bands. GNR made the perfect album so they held to a higher standard. But really what happened is pretty common.

That's what I was saying, nu Guns is like Megadeth really.

Hybrid day is inevitable.

Edited December 3, 2015 by wasted

[DieselDaisy]

You accept hybrid line ups of the Stones and all these other bands but not GNR.

GNR isn't in a vacuum, all these other bands do it so why not GNR?

I think though early Megadeth is like early Guns. It's just we buy into the media stuff about certain bands. GNR made the perfect album so they held to a higher standard. But really what happened is pretty common.

There has never been a hybrid of the Stones, unless you include Mick Taylor and Bill Wyman's guest appearances on the 50/Zip code tour!

[SoulMonster]

Yes, but the difference is that you're not Elvis, you aren't related in any way to any Elvis project and you don't own his name either. Meanwhile Axl Rose created the name Guns N' Roses before he came to be in a band with Slash, Duff or Steven. He also promoted, recorded and wrote under that name along with them and Izzy for a long time, but during that period Adler got fired, Slash, Duff and Izzy quit and Axl carried on with the name (something they agreed upon before they even got big). If you have a problem with Chinese Democracy being a Guns N' Roses album why don't you call Slash and Duff and ask them why did they signed of the name to Axl.

You can say that about any new gnr member outside Axl and Dizzy!

It is a con job anyway. The band 'Guns N' Roses' that began in 1985 was effectively folded in late 1995. The band masquerading as 'Guns N' Roses' since then (1996-present) are really a completely new legal entity which just so happens to carry the same name as the prior band. Axl's power grab was akin to when a business files for bankruptcy and then quickly sets up shop again, i.e. a swizz, a con job.

Rigt on cue! The old technicality that people throw out as a last resort when their belief that Chinese Democracy wasn't released by GN'R, is under attack.

It is a fact, an inconvenient fact seemingly for some.

And an irrelavent technicality for most

About the Elvis thing, I can actually change my name by deed poll to ''Elvis Aaron Presley''. I can buy a jump suit. I can even do a bog standard imitation of his speech and pull some Vegas era shapes. I still however would not be Elvis. Same with Axl's circus, not being Guns.

Because a perosn is identified by genetics whereas a business/brand is defined by ownership/legal papers/continuation

I just think it's something that has happened in rock bands. Stones without Jones. ACDC without Bon. Oasis without Bonehead. Trust GNR to be extreme.

No it doesn't it. A/ None of the bands you listed have ended up with one original member

But there are enougbe xamples of bands that have to not make this unprecedented. Besides, even classic Guns only had two original members.

[DieselDaisy]

Yes, but the difference is that you're not Elvis, you aren't related in any way to any Elvis project and you don't own his name either. Meanwhile Axl Rose created the name Guns N' Roses before he came to be in a band with Slash, Duff or Steven. He also promoted, recorded and wrote under that name along with them and Izzy for a long time, but during that period Adler got fired, Slash, Duff and Izzy quit and Axl carried on with the name (something they agreed upon before they even got big). If you have a problem with Chinese Democracy being a Guns N' Roses album why don't you call Slash and Duff and ask them why did they signed of the name to Axl.

You can say that about any new gnr member outside Axl and Dizzy!

It is a con job anyway. The band 'Guns N' Roses' that began in 1985 was effectively folded in late 1995. The band masquerading as 'Guns N' Roses' since then (1996-present) are really a completely new legal entity which just so happens to carry the same name as the prior band. Axl's power grab was akin to when a business files for bankruptcy and then quickly sets up shop again, i.e. a swizz, a con job.

Rigt on cue! The old technicality that people throw out as a last resort when their belief that Chinese Democracy wasn't released by GN'R, is under attack.

It is a fact, an inconvenient fact seemingly for some.

And an irrelavent technicality for most

I do not agree in the slightest.

Because a perosn is identified by genetics whereas a business/brand is defined by ownership/legal papers/continuation

I could even market myself as Elvis at the boozers I play. I might provoke the ire of the Presley family but we are all dealing with disputed jurisprudence here, after all! Slash and Duff launched many lawsuits against Axl in the naughties. Do you think they agreed with nugnr's validity?

I'm not the only one who believes that circus was never GN'R,

“Well, it’s obviously not Guns N’ Roses, I think all the fans [know that]. It’s not even right that he uses the name, because he’s the only guy

. I think ultimately it’s gonna work against him, because people are gonna say ‘Fuck you, wanker’ – that’s what they'll call him here, right?. ‘You fucking wanker, that’s not Guns N’ Roses!’

- Izzy Stradlin, http://www.teamrock.com/features/2014-04-08/izzy-stradlin-in-too-deep

But there are enougbe xamples of bands that have to not make this unprecedented. Besides, even classic Guns only had two original members.

Bollocks. All bands have this formative period before they are signed. It doesn't mean every waif and stray who stayed one week or less should be considered a bona fide original: Tracii Guns, Stuart Sutcliffe. Dick Taylor, remember him? He was - technically - the Stones' first bass player. Yes, Wyman was not the original bassist for the stones; try telling that to people on the street!

Edited December 3, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

I can belt out a drunken karaoke rendition of Suspicious Minds in my local pub and call myself ''Elvis''. Does not mean I'm Elvis!

No, and there would be absoluetly no reason to believe you are Elvis, either. But when a band called Guns N' Roses releases a record, then that record would have been released by the band Guns N' Roses . You can't use your own personal distate for the particular lineup behind that record, or your dislike for the record itself, or whatever, to ignore the fact that it was and is a Guns N' Roses record.

Yes, but the difference is that you're not Elvis, you aren't related in any way to any Elvis project and you don't own his name either. Meanwhile Axl Rose created the name Guns N' Roses before he came to be in a band with Slash, Duff or Steven. He also promoted, recorded and wrote under that name along with them and Izzy for a long time, but during that period Adler got fired, Slash, Duff and Izzy quit and Axl carried on with the name (something they agreed upon before they even got big). If you have a problem with Chinese Democracy being a Guns N' Roses album why don't you call Slash and Duff and ask them why did they signed of the name to Axl.

You can say that about any new gnr member outside Axl and Dizzy!

It is a con job anyway. The band 'Guns N' Roses' that began in 1985 was effectively folded in late 1995. The band masquerading as 'Guns N' Roses' since then (1996-present) are really a completely new legal entity which just so happens to carry the same name as the prior band. Axl's power grab was akin to when a business files for bankruptcy and then quickly sets up shop again, i.e. a swizz, a con job.

Rigt on cue! The old technicality that people throw out as a last resort when their belief that Chinese Democracy wasn't released by GN'R, is under attack.

You know what people are saying and what they mean. You are arguing a tiny technicality and not what people actually want to discuss.

Yes, Disel is saying and meaning that today's band isn't Guns N' Roses because it was legally ended and ressurected for a short time back in the 90s. I am pointing out that that is a silly technicality.

[SoulMonster]

Because a perosn is identified by genetics whereas a business/brand is defined by ownership/legal papers/continuation

I could even market myself as Elvis at the boozers I play. I might provoke the ire of the Presley family but we are all dealing with disputed jurisprudence here, after all! Slash and Duff launched many lawsuits against Axl in the naughties. Do you think they agreed with nugnr's validity?

Anyone can file a lawsuit, only those with a good case can win.

No, they didn't agree at the time. They seem to agree now. If thye can get over the butthurt, maybe you could, too?

But there are enougbe xamples of bands that have to not make this unprecedented. Besides, even classic Guns only had two original members.

Bollocks. All bands have this formative period before they are signed. It doesn't mean every waif and stray who stayed one week or less should be considered a bona fide original: Tracii Guns, Stuart Sutcliffe. Dick Taylor, remember him? He was - technically - the Stones' first bass player. Yes, Wyman was not the original bassist for the stones; try telling that to people on the street!

Why should I be worried about telling people that Wyman wasn't the very first bassist in the Rolling Stones to people in the streets? They'd beat me up? They'd probably say, "So what? Why the fuck you stopping me for telling me that?", or, "Okay, didn't know that, don't care.". Or similar responses.

Edited December 3, 2015 by SoulMonster

[DieselDaisy]

Because a perosn is identified by genetics whereas a business/brand is defined by ownership/legal papers/continuation

I could even market myself as Elvis at the boozers I play. I might provoke the ire of the Presley family but we are all dealing with disputed jurisprudence here, after all! Slash and Duff launched many lawsuits against Axl in the naughties. Do you think they agreed with nugnr's validity?

Anyone can file a lawsuit, only those with a good case can win.

No, they didn't agree at the time. They seem to agree now. If thye can get over the butthurt, maybe you could, too?

If this entails looking at DJ Ashba or any of those circus line-ups and saying, ''look, that is 'Guns N' Roses'', I decline.

I reserve judgement on the reunion until we see something more concrete. If Slash and Duff have sold out to a hybrid, as part of Axl's Brazilian circus replete with excrement from Chinese Democracy, I will certainly not be attending.

Because a perosn is identified by genetics whereas a business/brand is defined by ownership/legal papers/continuation

I could even market myself as Elvis at the boozers I play. I might provoke the ire of the Presley family but we are all dealing with disputed jurisprudence here, after all! Slash and Duff launched many lawsuits against Axl in the naughties. Do you think they agreed with nugnr's validity?

Anyone can file a lawsuit, only those with a good case can win.

No, they didn't agree at the time. They seem to agree now. If thye can get over the butthurt, maybe you could, too?

But there are enougbe xamples of bands that have to not make this unprecedented. Besides, even classic Guns only had two original members.

Bollocks. All bands have this formative period before they are signed. It doesn't mean every waif and stray who stayed one week or less should be considered a bona fide original: Tracii Guns, Stuart Sutcliffe. Dick Taylor, remember him? He was - technically - the Stones' first bass player. Yes, Wyman was not the original bassist for the stones; try telling that to people on the street!

Why should I be worried about telling people that Wyman wasn't the very first bassist in the Rolling Stones to people in the streets? They'd beat me up? They'd probably say, "So what? Why the fuck you stopping me for telling me that?", or, "Okay, didn't know that, don't care.". Or similar responses.

Well then? Although you think gnr can compete with the rolling Stones. That's a laugh. Even Guns N' Roses do not think they are as good as the Rolling Stones haha.

[SoulMonster]

Because a perosn is identified by genetics whereas a business/brand is defined by ownership/legal papers/continuation

I could even market myself as Elvis at the boozers I play. I might provoke the ire of the Presley family but we are all dealing with disputed jurisprudence here, after all! Slash and Duff launched many lawsuits against Axl in the naughties. Do you think they agreed with nugnr's validity?

Anyone can file a lawsuit, only those with a good case can win.

No, they didn't agree at the time. They seem to agree now. If thye can get over the butthurt, maybe you could, too?

If this entails looking at DJ Ashba or any of those circus line-ups and saying, ''look, that is 'Guns N' Roses'', I decline.

Well, it really isn't within your power to define the names of bands just based on your own feelings. Have you tried instead going, "look, that is a disgraceful Guns N' Roses lineup! Look at that wanker go!"? It would not only more precicely describe what you feel, but would also infact be correct.

Why should I be worried about telling people that Wyman wasn't the very first bassist in the Rolling Stones to people in the streets? They'd beat me up? They'd probably say, "So what? Why the fuck you stopping me for telling me that?", or, "Okay, didn't know that, don't care.". Or similar responses.

Well then? Although you think gnr can compete with the rolling Stones. That's a laugh. Even Guns N' Roses do not think they are as good as the Rolling Stones haha.

Musical taste is subjective. I'd go see Guns N' Roses over Rolling Stones anyday .

[wasted]

You accept hybrid line ups of the Stones and all these other bands but not GNR.

GNR isn't in a vacuum, all these other bands do it so why not GNR?

I think though early Megadeth is like early Guns. It's just we buy into the media stuff about certain bands. GNR made the perfect album so they held to a higher standard. But really what happened is pretty common.

There has never been a hybrid of the Stones, unless you include Mick Taylor and Bill Wyman's guest appearances on the 50/Zip code tour!

Anything not the original line up isn't really The Stones. Daryl Jones and Ronnie Wood are basically Frank and Fortus.

[DieselDaisy]

Because a perosn is identified by genetics whereas a business/brand is defined by ownership/legal papers/continuation

I could even market myself as Elvis at the boozers I play. I might provoke the ire of the Presley family but we are all dealing with disputed jurisprudence here, after all! Slash and Duff launched many lawsuits against Axl in the naughties. Do you think they agreed with nugnr's validity?

Anyone can file a lawsuit, only those with a good case can win.

No, they didn't agree at the time. They seem to agree now. If thye can get over the butthurt, maybe you could, too?

If this entails looking at DJ Ashba or any of those circus line-ups and saying, ''look, that is 'Guns N' Roses'', I decline.

Well, it really isn't within your power to define the names of bands just based on your own feelings. Have you tried instead going, "look, that is a disgraceful Guns N' Roses lineup! Look at that wanker go!"? It would not only more precicely describe what you feel, but would also infact be correct.

I am perfectly in my rights to call something a fake. If I go to a London market place and buy a designer shirt by, say Gucci, despite the protestations of Del Boy Trotter, I'm perfectly in my rights to say, ''that is a fraud''.

You accept hybrid line ups of the Stones and all these other bands but not GNR.

GNR isn't in a vacuum, all these other bands do it so why not GNR?

I think though early Megadeth is like early Guns. It's just we buy into the media stuff about certain bands. GNR made the perfect album so they held to a higher standard. But really what happened is pretty common.

There has never been a hybrid of the Stones, unless you include Mick Taylor and Bill Wyman's guest appearances on the 50/Zip code tour!

Anything not the original line up isn't really The Stones. Daryl Jones and Ronnie Wood are basically Frank and Fortus.

You have finally lost the plot! Jesus wasted, put your drugs away. Firstly Jones is not a Rolling Stone but a backing musician (although he has still contributed to three albums and been with them for about twenty years but that is besides the point!). Secondly, Ron Wood has been in the band for forty years, contributing to ten studio albums. Forty years and ten studio albums!! There is no comparison more offensive than the one you've just made, between Ronnie and the scabs Frank and Fortus.

This AIDS thing is really beginning to kick in, isn't it?