Songs from CD that the reunion lineup should play

[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.

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''.

Yes, of course. You are also perfectly in your right to say things that aren't correct. What I am saying it that you don't have the power to decide what a band's name is or isn't. If you go up to a band that is called something and claim it isn't, or claim an apple isn't an apple, or that France isn't France anymore, because you dislike how that band has turned out, has stopped liking the taste of apples, and feel France has gone downhill since the Revolution, then you come across as a bit, well, deranged. Your personal opinion on the state of something doesn't give you the power to change the name of that entity/thing/whatever. The world doesn't work that way You don't have those powers. Regardless of what you feel about the current state of Guns N' Roses, it is still Guns N' Roses, and you only come across as a bit wierd if you insist it isn't People will think, "What's wrong with that guy?". Of course we know what is wrong: A whole lotta disappointment that you try to dissipate by forcing yourself to think that whatever happens with that band, it luckily isn't Guns N' Roses the band you liked so much. It is the equivalent to closing your eyes, holding your hands over your ears and go, "lalalalalalalalala!", when confronted with something unpleasant.

[wasted]

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?

They aren't the original band members. They are for the most part just covering Stones songs they didn't write.

There's just a double standard when it comes to GNR. It's the curse of the top selling debut. Nothing ever lives up to it.

None of these bands are as pure as some want GNR to be. Even if Slash and Duff return it won't be enough for some.

[Bono]

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

Or what's more likely is he'd make them way fucking better.

[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?

They aren't the original band members. They are for the most part just covering Stones songs they didn't write.

There's just a double standard when it comes to GNR. It's the curse of the top selling debut. Nothing ever lives up to it.

None of these bands are as pure as some want GNR to be. Even if Slash and Duff return it won't be enough for some.

But writing has not got anything to do with your legitimacy as a band member. By that token, Charlie Watts, Steven Adler and Brian Jones, the founder of The Rolling Stones, were all cover artists and not bona fide. Ringo was barely a Beatle until 1968 when he wrote 'Don't Pass Me By'', and Elvis was basically nothingness!!

Ron Wood has played guitar on ten albums - ten bloody Rolling Stones albums - including the immortal Some Girls LP as well as Tattoo You. He has written guitar solos for those said albums and created the second incarnation of the Stones weaving sound. Ron arguably saved the Stones when Jagger and Richards were feuding. He was even made a legal member in the early '90s - can you say similar about Fortus and Frank who are both just salarymen? Also Ronnie has written Stones songs,

"Dance (Pt. 1)

"Black Limousine"

"No Use in Crying

Pretty Beat Up

One Hit

Fight

Dirty Work

Had It With You.

So your entire premise is based on a fallacy regardless!!

[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''.

Yes, of course. You are also perfectly in your right to say things that aren't correct. What I am saying it that you don't have the power to decide what a band's name is or isn't. If you go up to a band that is called something and claim it isn't, or claim an apple isn't an apple, or that France isn't France anymore, because you dislike how that band has turned out, has stopped liking the taste of apples, and feel France has gone downhill since the Revolution, then you come across as a bit, well, deranged. Your personal opinion on the state of something doesn't give you the power to change the name of that entity/thing/whatever. The world doesn't work that way You don't have those powers. Regardless of what you feel about the current state of Guns N' Roses, it is still Guns N' Roses, and you only come across as a bit wierd if you insist it isn't People will think, "What's wrong with that guy?". Of course we know what is wrong: A whole lotta disappointment that you try to dissipate by forcing yourself to think that whatever happens with that band, it luckily isn't Guns N' Roses the band you liked so much. It is the equivalent to closing your eyes, holding your hands over your ears and go, "lalalalalalalalala!", when confronted with something unpleasant.

This argument reminds me of revolutionary governments and civil war. During the French Revolution for instance Bourbonistes refused to recognise the legitimacy of the incumbent revolutionary government. The revolution established a government, a declaration of intent, a constitution and had some degree of populist support, yet to a Bourbon that government was an aberration, an illegal usurpation.

It was similar with the American Civil War. Lincoln refused to treat the CSA as a belligerent power, although the Confederacy had a constitution, an army and navy, a currency and ambassadors.

The legality of it is only as genuine as the lawgivers, you see? To me Axl established his new band through Machiavellianism.

Edited December 3, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[wasted]

All the mega hits that they play every show.

They just aren't the original band so they aren't really The Stones. It's just a Mick and Keef cash grab touring since forever.

[DieselDaisy]

All the mega hits that they play every show.

They just aren't the original band so they aren't really The Stones. It's just a Mick and Keef cash grab touring since forever.

You just speak a load of bollocks basically (as usual)

I mean Charlie has been there since 1963 but you are probably going to ignore this obvious inconvenient truth (as usual) and start talking about Atlas Wanked with James Patrick Page and Brian May on bongos. Typical Wasted garbage.

Also The Stones (arguably) had their greatest and most fertile period under Mick Taylor, i.e. not the original band!

[wasted]

3 original members isn't really The Stones just like Axl, Slash and Duff isn't a reunion.

[DieselDaisy]

3 original members isn't really The Stones just like Axl, Slash and Duff isn't a reunion.

The Rolling Stones have never not existed to begin with (since their formation in 1962). In order to reunite, one has to have not existed - dispersed, quit - preceding that same reunion!

Please go and read a book and lay off the drugs and Chinese Democracy for a week.

Edited December 3, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[wasted]

GNR never broke up either, they just replaced a few members like The Stones. Yet for some reason GNR isn't the real GNR but The Stones are the real Stones to some people.

[DieselDaisy]

They did break up to all intents and purposes. The partnership was folded 31st December 1995. The band that emerged on 1st January 1996 are a completely new band. Also there is a continuity with the Stones. Mick, Keith and Charlie have been stable 1963-2015. The continuity with Guns breaks up and becomes muddled between 1994-1997. The band which emerged in 1999 was very different with little continuity with the old band.

[wasted]

Guns had Axl and Dizzy and The Stones had Mick, Keef and Charlie.

Still both bands lost original members but The Stones are seen as the real Stones, GNR aren't for some reason judged in the same way.

Definitely a bit of a double standard. But who cares they both can tour. If Slash and Duff join Axl and Dizzy GNR will be winning the line up wars.

I wouldn't call it a reunion but I guess it will be sold as one.

[DieselDaisy]

There is no double standard at all. Nobody could look at the post Wyman Stones and feel they are being cheated. You are speaking out of your arsehole.

I'll do it in maths for you....

Original members

three (Stones) vs 1 (Axl)

[Słash]

Wasted, the current hired members of Axl's band are in the band since a long time, you call them as members of Guns N' Roses, so if Axl leaves and they hire Myles Kennedy, so the current lineup of the band with Myles. According to you even that will be Guns N' Roses? or not? just cause Axl is not there?

It should be called Guns N' Roses then also?

[wasted]

Still not the full original line up.

Pretending Black and Blue is as good as Beggars is stretching it. I like Black and Blue but it's no rock classic.

I go to Stones shows and it's all the old classics, no Ronnie songs, maybe one. And you have Daryl on bass. Obviously not the original line up that made them successful.

[DieselDaisy]

Still not the full original line up.

Pretending Black and Blue is as good as Beggars is stretching it. I like Black and Blue but it's no rock classic.

I go to Stones shows and it's all the old classics, no Ronnie songs, maybe one. And you have Daryl on bass. Obviously not the original line up that made them successful.

The initial argument was not about original line-ups per se but whether are not a band is a legitimate entity. Clearly Mick/Keith/Charlie/Ron are the Stones. Describing Axl and a bunch of random guys as 'Guns' however is a stretch. I do not know what your argument about Black and Blue pertains to? Some people's favourite Stones album is Some Girls and that features Ronnie.

[Rovim]

^^^

But if Slash and Duff are back in Guns, suddenly it's a legitimate entity cause you have 3 original members but it's still not real Guns without Izzy and Steven.

Just like The Stones aren't really The Stones. But somehow they seem legit. No double standard.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Rovim

[DieselDaisy]

^^^

But if Slash and Duff are back in Guns, suddenly it's a legitimate entity cause you have 3 original members but it's still not real Guns without Izzy and Steven.

Just like The Stones aren't really The Stones according to your logic. But they seem legit. No double standard.

But I've never said that!!

I've said that a hybrid line-up seems odd to me, and would be far poorer for lacking Stradlin and Steven's presence.

[Rovim]

^^^

But if Slash and Duff are back in Guns, suddenly it's a legitimate entity cause you have 3 original members but it's still not real Guns without Izzy and Steven.

Just like The Stones aren't really The Stones according to your logic. But they seem legit. No double standard.

But I've never said that!!

I've said that a hybrid line-up seems odd to me, and would be far poorer for lacking Stradlin and Steven's presence.

Oh. So if Duff and Slash are back in Guns, it won't be real Guns. Even if it's 3 original members? The use your illusion line up?

So what makes The Stones more The Stones compared to Axl, Slash, and Duff?

Here's your double standard: The Stones can only have 3 original members but still be the real Stones, yet it will be "odd" to you, for some reason, when it comes to Slash, Duff, and Axl being considered legit as Gn'R.

That's odd. Wasn't it odd when Mick Taylor left? important for The Stones. You're talking out of your ass again I'm afraid. Besides, even if you were not wrong again, the comparison is retarded anyway. Different bands, different people, different rules. Cause the personalities in a band dictate how it will operate, and which elements most strongly define it.

So in Guns it's a completely unique case compared to The Stones. Apples to oranges.

If you ask me, Guns was always the original 5. Real Guns. They never moved forward without Izzy (until Chinese) and Steven was a part of the sound. An element.

But technically speaking, The Stones are not really The Stones without all of the original members. People still called it Guns when Izzy left but it doesn't mean anything from an artistic point of view anyway.

Axl kept the band going on life support, but eventually did release an album. So technically, it's viable artistically speaking. And what about Fleetwood Mac.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Rovim

[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.

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''.

Yes, of course. You are also perfectly in your right to say things that aren't correct. What I am saying it that you don't have the power to decide what a band's name is or isn't. If you go up to a band that is called something and claim it isn't, or claim an apple isn't an apple, or that France isn't France anymore, because you dislike how that band has turned out, has stopped liking the taste of apples, and feel France has gone downhill since the Revolution, then you come across as a bit, well, deranged. Your personal opinion on the state of something doesn't give you the power to change the name of that entity/thing/whatever. The world doesn't work that way You don't have those powers. Regardless of what you feel about the current state of Guns N' Roses, it is still Guns N' Roses, and you only come across as a bit wierd if you insist it isn't People will think, "What's wrong with that guy?". Of course we know what is wrong: A whole lotta disappointment that you try to dissipate by forcing yourself to think that whatever happens with that band, it luckily isn't Guns N' Roses the band you liked so much. It is the equivalent to closing your eyes, holding your hands over your ears and go, "lalalalalalalalala!", when confronted with something unpleasant.

This argument reminds me of revolutionary governments and civil war. During the French Revolution for instance Bourbonistes refused to recognise the legitimacy of the incumbent revolutionary government. The revolution established a government, a declaration of intent, a constitution and had some degree of populist support, yet to a Bourbon that government was an aberration, an illegal usurpation.

It was similar with the American Civil War. Lincoln refused to treat the CSA as a belligerent power, although the Confederacy had a constitution, an army and navy, a currency and ambassadors.

The legality of it is only as genuine as the lawgivers, you see? To me Axl established his new band through Machiavellianism.

Haha, only on a GN'R forum

[SoulMonster]

^^^

But if Slash and Duff are back in Guns, suddenly it's a legitimate entity cause you have 3 original members but it's still not real Guns without Izzy and Steven.

Just like The Stones aren't really The Stones according to your logic. But they seem legit. No double standard.

But I've never said that!!

I've said that a hybrid line-up seems odd to me, and would be far poorer for lacking Stradlin and Steven's presence.

Oh. So if Duff and Slash are back in Guns, it won't be real Guns. Even if it's 3 original members? The use your illusion line up?

So what makes The Stones more The Stones compared to Axl, Slash, and Duff?

Here's your double standard: The Stones can only have 3 original members but still be the real Stones, yet it will be "odd" to you, for some reason, when it comes to Slash, Duff, and Axl being considered legit as Gn'R.

There really is no double standard as long as you understand that to Diesel whatever is "real" or "fake" is just what he is most comfortable with.

[DieselDaisy]

^^^

But if Slash and Duff are back in Guns, suddenly it's a legitimate entity cause you have 3 original members but it's still not real Guns without Izzy and Steven.

Just like The Stones aren't really The Stones according to your logic. But they seem legit. No double standard.

But I've never said that!!

I've said that a hybrid line-up seems odd to me, and would be far poorer for lacking Stradlin and Steven's presence.

Oh. So if Duff and Slash are back in Guns, it won't be real Guns. Even if it's 3 original members? The use your illusion line up?

So what makes The Stones more The Stones compared to Axl, Slash, and Duff?

Here's your double standard: The Stones can only have 3 original members but still be the real Stones, yet it will be "odd" to you, for some reason, when it comes to Slash, Duff, and Axl being considered legit as Gn'R.

That's odd. Wasn't it odd when Mick Taylor left? important for The Stones. You're talking out of your ass again I'm afraid. Besides, even if you were not wrong again, the comparison is retarded anyway. Different bands, different people, different rules. Cause the personalities in a band dictate how it will operate, and which elements most strongly define it.

So in Guns it's a completely unique case compared to The Stones. Apples to oranges.

If you ask me, Guns was always the original 5. Real Guns. They never moved forward without Izzy (until Chinese) and Steven was a part of the sound. An element.

But technically speaking, The Stones are not really The Stones without all of the original members. People still called it Guns when Izzy left but it doesn't mean anything from an artistic point of view anyway.

Axl kept the band going on life support, but eventually did release an album. So technically, it's viable artistically speaking. And what about Fleetwood Mac.

But you are amalgamating two separate arguments as well as producing straw mans. The hybrid discussion is separate from my argument that nugnr have no legitimacy and are in fact 'fake'.

[Rovim]

^^^

You've got nothing, don't you? didn't address not one of my points. You're a disgrace. I'm going to bed. (seek treatment)

[DieselDaisy]

But you are arguing two separate arguments!! How do you expect me to respond to that when you have basically taken the conversation and applied it to all of those hybrid discussions we were having two weeks ago?

I cannot actually conceive of a scenario in which The Rolling Stones would have a choice on a hybrid line-up in their career! The choice of a reunion of any manifestation has simply never existed in Stones history let alone a hybrid reunion. For one thing The Stones have had essentially seven members (five originals in place by 1963, and two replacements) and the two replacements consequentially replaced each other in the exact same position, i.e. second guitarist! It is impossible to conceive of an analogy between the two because you have drawn the Stones into a completely separate discussion.

(GN'R have had twenty-two members by the way!).

Edited December 3, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[Mr. Dude]

Still not the full original line up.

Pretending Black and Blue is as good as Beggars is stretching it. I like Black and Blue but it's no rock classic.

I go to Stones shows and it's all the old classics, no Ronnie songs, maybe one. And you have Daryl on bass. Obviously not the original line up that made them successful.

The initial argument was not about original line-ups per se but whether are not a band is a legitimate entity. Clearly Mick/Keith/Charlie/Ron are the Stones. Describing Axl and a bunch of random guys as 'Guns' however is a stretch. I do not know what your argument about Black and Blue pertains to? Some people's favourite Stones album is Some Girls and that features Ronnie.

Some Girls is my favorite.

I'd like to see a reunited Guns play Sorry preceded by an apology from Slash to Axl.