why do you think Matt is so OUT?

[Towelie]

Also, Sorum did say he wanted to clump him a couple of times, didn't he? And more or less insinuate that the other members were the only thing that stopped him from sparking Axl out, Axls probably thinking 'right, thats you off the list for a payday you stringy haired Cult drumming stop-gap motherfucker'

Add to the fact that the UYI tour is almost unwatchable these days thanks to his Michael Bolton poodle haircut.

[wasted]

Do you think Axl will share the GNR name rights to Slash and Duff?

Fuck no, why would he wanna do a thing like that, he's on a winner here, he basically starved them out, won the war of attrition

And we know Slash can write stuff Axl likes. So we should see more records coming out.

I'll believe that when i fuckin' see it, who wants to be writing music at their time of life when they can just be raking in the dough ready for that slow sail off into the sunset.

If i was Axl I'd treat em like shit Be chillin' out in the studio when they show up, legs up on the mixing desk snoozing then turn, slide my sunglasses down my nose and be like: 'so...you're back are ya? Must've fallen out of love with the music eh nobheads?'

20 years later, nothing has changed.

Even kicked off the reunion with a no show.

2 hours late to Coachella. Axl's chopper will get lost in a sandstorm.

How you like your reunion now motherfuckers!

[Len Cnut]

Do you think Axl will share the GNR name rights to Slash and Duff?

Fuck no, why would he wanna do a thing like that, he's on a winner here, he basically starved them out, won the war of attrition

And we know Slash can write stuff Axl likes. So we should see more records coming out.

I'll believe that when i fuckin' see it, who wants to be writing music at their time of life when they can just be raking in the dough ready for that slow sail off into the sunset.

If i was Axl I'd treat em like shit Be chillin' out in the studio when they show up, legs up on the mixing desk snoozing then turn, slide my sunglasses down my nose and be like: 'so...you're back are ya? Must've fallen out of love with the music eh nobheads?'

20 years later, nothing has changed.

Even kicked off the reunion with a no show.

2 hours late to Coachella. Axl's chopper will get lost in a sandstorm.

How you like your reunion now motherfuckers!

'No, i like my way better'

'But Axl I think it'd be good if...'

'Oh you think do you? You think? Well y'know, there's plenty of room out the front door to think mate, you're more than welcome to go back to making knock offs with Cypress Hill? Good, so thats agreed then? Nice one!'

[Tom2112]

Who says it's personal? At the end of the day, someone was going to be left on the scrapheap, out of Frank, Matt and Steven. Perhaps Matt will make a guest appearance on a few shows, like Steven is rumoured to. But I'm kind of glad that Axl has kept Frank on. He's a solid drummer and knows the whole catalogue, so he was the guy who made the most sense. People want to see Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy. Only a couple of mullet-wearing AFD/UYI purists will be bothered about Adler and Sorum not being full time members.

How do people even post shit like this. Frank mkes the most sense? On what fucking planet? Because he knows the whole catelogue? And Matt and Steven don't? Oh wait soooooorrrrrry. they don't "know" the shit that is CD but they wouldn't be capable enought o learn the one or two songs that might get featured from CD. Get real man. Frank makes rhe most sense? This is why GnR fans are some fo the most fucked up in all of music. And the fact you call fans who were around back when GnR was fucking REAL "AFD/UYI purists makes you a goof. All you johnny come lately NuGnR clowns are so fuck in the head it's unreal.

Johnny come lately I've been listening to GnR for 16yrs, and I know that isn't as long as you, or some of the older people here lucky enough to get to see the band back in the day; but it means that I've been a fan for a LONG time. I find it hilarious when the guys (some not all) from the early years come out and tell everyone else that they know nothing just because we didn't see what it was like in the beginning.

I believe that I can look at the GNR history and be objective; not getting bogged down in the personal spats of the band, break ups, line up changes etc. I didn't grow up when guns were everywhere and blowing up, I got into them when they were in hibernation... so I obviously didn't have the same attachment to members as an older fan would, growing up seeing them on mtv or in concert.

That doesn't mean I appreciate the classic line up any less, Slash and Izzy are two of my favourite guitar players, Slash is probably the reason I picked up a guitar! Steven is one hell of a drummer (when he's on point), great swing and so much energy, Matt, came up with some nice stuff, the drumming on Estranged is some of favourite drumming on any Guns recording.

If anything I have most issues with the newer end of GnR! I have no time for the line-ups between 98-05 (besides the CD album itself), they didn't gel live, and (funnily enough ) they didn't have the right look. I really loved the 2006/07 line up (despite Robin) and I thought 09-14 was good but hard to watch sometimes due to DJ, and Axls up and down vocals.

All of that has allowed me to look at things for what they are. for example, Frank - a lot of people (yourself included) say he's a crap drummer.... well, the truth is the guy is as tight as it gets, the real problem (from what I've worked out) that 'most of you' have with him is that he doesn't have the right look, and he's not a replica of Steven or Matt... it has nothing to do with his ability as a drummer.

If we're talking about his ability, the guy plays with great feel, and he's solid... if we're talking about the guy, he's a nice dude that won't rock the boat. All of which means one thing... having him sit on the drum stool for the upcoming shows make sense - peace harmony, solid shows, a fruitful undisrupted run of shows. If we were calling this a classic era reunion (which we're not!) then you would need Steven or Matt full time, and having Frank there would NOT make sense.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Tom2112

[Teroz]

Because he said "whats up the the piano stuff", he was hired for GnR. He does not have the credit to say that, Duff and Slash can question the direction of the band, but no hired hand can. So Axl figured that Matt does not like the direction, he might as well be out.

[GNR-girl]

Do you think Axl will share the GNR name rights to Slash and Duff?

Fuck no, why would he wanna do a thing like that, he's on a winner here, he basically starved them out, won the war of attrition

And we know Slash can write stuff Axl likes. So we should see more records coming out.

I'll believe that when i fuckin' see it, who wants to be writing music at their time of life when they can just be raking in the dough ready for that slow sail off into the sunset.

If i was Axl I'd treat em like shit Be chillin' out in the studio when they show up, legs up on the mixing desk snoozing then turn, slide my sunglasses down my nose and be like: 'so...you're back are ya? Must've fallen out of love with the music eh nobheads?'

20 years later, nothing has changed.

Even kicked off the reunion with a no show.

2 hours late to Coachella. Axl's chopper will get lost in a sandstorm.

How you like your reunion now motherfuckers!

[DieselDaisy]

Only on Guns N' Roses forums are drummers considered completely expendable. Most 'great' bands possess drummers who are a vital component of their sound. I can only summarise that Guns N' Roses's fans are so acclimatised to randoms being switched around in a revolving line-up that they have lost that sense of a 'real band'. And really, the 'public only care about the Axl and Slash show' is not how I remember GN'R. Izzy is my favourite so you can take that philosophy and shove it where the sun don't shine.

[Towelie]

Only on Guns N' Roses forums are drummers considered completely expendable. Most 'great' bands possess drummers who are a vital component of their sound. I can only summarise that Guns N' Roses's fans are so acclimatised to randoms being switched around in a revolving line-up that they have lost that sense of a 'real band'. And really, the 'public only care about the Axl and Slash show' is not how I remember GN'R. Izzy is my favourite so you can take that philosophy and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Yeah, because Ringo was just as important to The Beatles as Lennon/McCartney, or Charlie Watts compared to Richards/Jagger.

Fact is, drummers serve a purpose, but the 5 minute drum solo in a live show is code for toilet break.

[DieselDaisy]

Only on Guns N' Roses forums are drummers considered completely expendable. Most 'great' bands possess drummers who are a vital component of their sound. I can only summarise that Guns N' Roses's fans are so acclimatised to randoms being switched around in a revolving line-up that they have lost that sense of a 'real band'. And really, the 'public only care about the Axl and Slash show' is not how I remember GN'R. Izzy is my favourite so you can take that philosophy and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Yeah, because Ringo was just as important to The Beatles as Lennon/McCartney, or Charlie Watts compared to Richards/Jagger.

Fact is, drummers serve a purpose, but the 5 minute drum solo in a live show is code for toilet break.

Fact is Ringo was important for the Beatles and Watts very important for the Stones (that is surely the backdrop of the Rolling Stones sound, Richards' guitar gliding over a Watts' drum groove?).

[Towelie]

Only on Guns N' Roses forums are drummers considered completely expendable. Most 'great' bands possess drummers who are a vital component of their sound. I can only summarise that Guns N' Roses's fans are so acclimatised to randoms being switched around in a revolving line-up that they have lost that sense of a 'real band'. And really, the 'public only care about the Axl and Slash show' is not how I remember GN'R. Izzy is my favourite so you can take that philosophy and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Yeah, because Ringo was just as important to The Beatles as Lennon/McCartney, or Charlie Watts compared to Richards/Jagger.

Fact is, drummers serve a purpose, but the 5 minute drum solo in a live show is code for toilet break.

Fact is Ringo was important for the Beatles and Watts very important for the Stones (that is surely the backdrop of the Rolling Stones sound, Richards' guitar gliding over a Watts' drum groove?).

But Lennon/McCartney would've made it without Ringo, but the same can't be said the other way round and you know it.

[Len Cnut]

Only on Guns N' Roses forums are drummers considered completely expendable. Most 'great' bands possess drummers who are a vital component of their sound. I can only summarise that Guns N' Roses's fans are so acclimatised to randoms being switched around in a revolving line-up that they have lost that sense of a 'real band'. And really, the 'public only care about the Axl and Slash show' is not how I remember GN'R. Izzy is my favourite so you can take that philosophy and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Yeah, because Ringo was just as important to The Beatles as Lennon/McCartney, or Charlie Watts compared to Richards/Jagger.

Fact is, drummers serve a purpose, but the 5 minute drum solo in a live show is code for toilet break.

I think Charlie Watts is as important, most definitely. Ringo? Extremely underrated to say the least, his particular kind of drumming lent shades to The Beatleses music that otherwise would not have been there, just listen to Abbey Road.

But thats not the point is it, you dont look at works of art in those terms do you, they are a finite article, not a motor you are stripping down, The Beatles were The Beatles and Ringo was part of them and whatever they were and did Ringo was a part of that, this is music, why do people look at it with the eyes of an asset stripper?

You cant talk about these alternate realities of 'could it have worked without Ringo', whats that got to do with anything, there is one reality, its a one shot thing and each element is AS essential as the other, without Ringo you wouldnt've had a Beatles, simple as that 'but anyone can play like him!' Firstly no they cant and secondly, OK, lets say they could but they didnt all get on and broke up after two albums cuz of it? Or one of em was involved in a freak accident that this imaginary other drummer was a part of? Do you see how ridiculous and endless these sorts of odd hypotheseses are?

[Gold top 78]

Ive been a fan of GNR since 92 and would love to see matt in the lineup. Slash/duff/matt have been playing together on and off for 25 years which I thought would go in matt's favour. But I suppose there's a simple reason he seems to be out. It's not a reunion.

T/B and GNR have never said it's a reunion so I suppose there's no need to have a line up made up of old members it seems axl wants GNR to continue if all goes well. I think axl said to slash and duff that if they come back it will be as replacements in the line up but obviously with equal partnership.

Given it'll still be seen as a reunion it's only fair Adler Matt and Izzy get some guest spots. I think part of the deal will be matt gets the job if things go wrong with frank

Edited January 7, 2016 by Gold top 78

[DieselDaisy]

Only on Guns N' Roses forums are drummers considered completely expendable. Most 'great' bands possess drummers who are a vital component of their sound. I can only summarise that Guns N' Roses's fans are so acclimatised to randoms being switched around in a revolving line-up that they have lost that sense of a 'real band'. And really, the 'public only care about the Axl and Slash show' is not how I remember GN'R. Izzy is my favourite so you can take that philosophy and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Yeah, because Ringo was just as important to The Beatles as Lennon/McCartney, or Charlie Watts compared to Richards/Jagger.

Fact is, drummers serve a purpose, but the 5 minute drum solo in a live show is code for toilet break.

Fact is Ringo was important for the Beatles and Watts very important for the Stones (that is surely the backdrop of the Rolling Stones sound, Richards' guitar gliding over a Watts' drum groove?).

But Lennon/McCartney would've made it without Ringo, but the same can't be said the other way round and you know it.

Yes but that does not mean Ringo is unimportant, and Watts is vital for the Stones' sound! Only GN'R fans seem to devalue their drummers to the point that they resemble expendable chess pieces.

Edited January 7, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

Only on Guns N' Roses forums are drummers considered completely expendable. Most 'great' bands possess drummers who are a vital component of their sound. I can only summarise that Guns N' Roses's fans are so acclimatised to randoms being switched around in a revolving line-up that they have lost that sense of a 'real band'. And really, the 'public only care about the Axl and Slash show' is not how I remember GN'R. Izzy is my favourite so you can take that philosophy and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Yeah, because Ringo was just as important to The Beatles as Lennon/McCartney, or Charlie Watts compared to Richards/Jagger.

Fact is, drummers serve a purpose, but the 5 minute drum solo in a live show is code for toilet break.

Fact is Ringo was important for the Beatles and Watts very important for the Stones (that is surely the backdrop of the Rolling Stones sound, Richards' guitar gliding over a Watts' drum groove?).

But Lennon/McCartney would've made it without Ringo, but the same can't be said the other way round and you know it.

Y'reckon? Why would you say that? Perhaps the addition of George and Ringo, apart from the musical contribution, tempered their competitiveness and kept them from biting each others heads off? Bands ain't just about these robots that make tunes, personalities hold bands together too.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Len B'stard

[Towelie]

Only on Guns N' Roses forums are drummers considered completely expendable. Most 'great' bands possess drummers who are a vital component of their sound. I can only summarise that Guns N' Roses's fans are so acclimatised to randoms being switched around in a revolving line-up that they have lost that sense of a 'real band'. And really, the 'public only care about the Axl and Slash show' is not how I remember GN'R. Izzy is my favourite so you can take that philosophy and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Yeah, because Ringo was just as important to The Beatles as Lennon/McCartney, or Charlie Watts compared to Richards/Jagger.

Fact is, drummers serve a purpose, but the 5 minute drum solo in a live show is code for toilet break.

I think Charlie Watts is as important, most definitely. Ringo? Extremely underrated to say the least, his particular kind of drumming lent shades to The Beatleses music that otherwise would not have been there, just listen to Abbey Road.

But thats not the point is it, you dont look at works of art in those terms do you, they are a finite article, not a motor you are stripping down, The Beatles were The Beatles and Ringo was part of them and whatever they were and did Ringo was a part of that, this is music, why do people look at it with the eyes of an asset stripper?

You cant talk about these alternate realities of 'could it have worked without Ringo', whats that got to do with anything, there is one reality, its a one shot thing and each element is AS essential as the other, without Ringo you wouldnt've had a Beatles, simple as that 'but anyone can play like him!' Firstly no they cant and secondly, OK, lets say they could but they didnt all get on and broke up after two albums cuz of it? Or one of em was involved in a freak accident that this imaginary other drummer was a part of? Do you see how ridiculous and endless these sorts of odd hypotheseses are?

I see your point, but ultimately, the reason why the guitarist and the singer are traditionally the most celebrated members of any band is because that is where the emotional connection lies. It's in the songwriting, it's in the sincerity of the vocal delivery, it's in the chord voicings and note choices of the guitar. I'm not trying to say that a drummer doesn't have an important part to add into the mix, but it's no way near as important as the other stuff I mentioned.

[whatashame]

Matt was the boss of VR (not the frontman - the boss)

Matt is the boss of Kings of Chaos

and apparently, Slash has grown to hate his over the years

If Matt was back in GNR, Slash would have not only listen to Axl but probably to Matt lol

besides, if Matt is let into the reunion, he won't settle for just any bone they trow him

Adler would do the reunion for free, Matt wouldn't

for Matt it's better to take Gilby into the Kings Of Chaos and Sebastian Bach

and either open for GNR or have a counter-band, like VR was to GNR in 2004

[Len Cnut]

Only on Guns N' Roses forums are drummers considered completely expendable. Most 'great' bands possess drummers who are a vital component of their sound. I can only summarise that Guns N' Roses's fans are so acclimatised to randoms being switched around in a revolving line-up that they have lost that sense of a 'real band'. And really, the 'public only care about the Axl and Slash show' is not how I remember GN'R. Izzy is my favourite so you can take that philosophy and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Yeah, because Ringo was just as important to The Beatles as Lennon/McCartney, or Charlie Watts compared to Richards/Jagger.

Fact is, drummers serve a purpose, but the 5 minute drum solo in a live show is code for toilet break.

I think Charlie Watts is as important, most definitely. Ringo? Extremely underrated to say the least, his particular kind of drumming lent shades to The Beatleses music that otherwise would not have been there, just listen to Abbey Road.

But thats not the point is it, you dont look at works of art in those terms do you, they are a finite article, not a motor you are stripping down, The Beatles were The Beatles and Ringo was part of them and whatever they were and did Ringo was a part of that, this is music, why do people look at it with the eyes of an asset stripper?

You cant talk about these alternate realities of 'could it have worked without Ringo', whats that got to do with anything, there is one reality, its a one shot thing and each element is AS essential as the other, without Ringo you wouldnt've had a Beatles, simple as that 'but anyone can play like him!' Firstly no they cant and secondly, OK, lets say they could but they didnt all get on and broke up after two albums cuz of it? Or one of em was involved in a freak accident that this imaginary other drummer was a part of? Do you see how ridiculous and endless these sorts of odd hypotheseses are?

I see your point, but ultimately, the reason why the guitarist and the singer are traditionally the most celebrated members of any band is because that is where the emotional connection lies. It's in the songwriting, it's in the sincerity of the vocal delivery, it's in the chord voicings and note choices of the guitar. I'm not trying to say that a drummer doesn't have an important part to add into the mix, but it's no way near as important as the other stuff I mentioned.

The only people that that is for is for kids quite honestly. Kids that fall in love with music videos and all they see is a lead singer and a guitarist that they wannabe like, heroes and all that, it's total silliness, people that like music like music, thats drums, bass, singers, guitarists, it's a collaborative enterprise, you might have a certain affection for one over the other but this whole idea of everybody apart from the fuckin' lead singer and guitarist being sidemen is absolutely ridiculous.

I mean fuck it, why have drums at all, Lennon and McCartney melodies carried themselves, just have some tart clapping in the background...but then it wouldn't've been The Beatles would it?

as a side note pay closer attention to Ringos work with The Beatles, particularly live, a lot of their thump was down to Ringo, he was a left handed drummer playing right handed and a consequence of this was it had a sort of reverse drumming feel to it, makes it hit that much harder though, people go on about girls screaming at them cuz they were pretty boys but make no mistake about it, it was the music that moved the crowds and Ringo lent something VERY unique to it that a drummers drummer might've ended up swallowing the quality of, some like Moonie for example could NEVER play like Ringo.

And i totally disagree about all the emotion in guitar and voice, to me Moonie made The Who as much as any other and i refuse to listen to a Moonless Who...and i still havent, never bought an album of theirs or listened to it after Who Are You...and i never will, whatever The Who was it was to do with that man and his glorious drumming...same way i wouldnt listen to a Gingeless Cream...and Zep too, thought i aint a fan i cant imagine how shit they'd sound without Bonzo.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Len B'stard

[LovelessNL]

Ive been a fan of GNR since 92 and would love to see matt in the lineup. Slash/duff/matt have been playing together on and off for 25 years which I thought would go in matt's favour. But I suppose there's a simple reason he seems to be out. It's not a reunion.

T/B and GNR have never said it's a reunion so I suppose there's no need to have a line up made up of old members it seems axl wants GNR to continue if all goes well. I think axl said to slash and duff that if they come back it will be as replacements in the line up but obviously with equal partnership.

Given it'll still be seen as a reunion it's only fair Adler Matt and Izzy get some guest spots. I think part of the deal will be matt gets the job if things go wrong with frank

I actually highly doubt Axl will give Slash and Duff equal partnerships. I think its more like they'll be some fancy version of a hired hand, with a huge payout. My feeling (especially after the press release) is that Axl is and will be the sole owner and 'boss' of the Guns N' Roses brand. And one of the best things for the brand is a Slash and Duff joining, as the marketvalue of the brand will go sky high. So they will be paid very generously for their services. But I doubt that they'll be making decisions on where to go with GnR as a whole.

[Towelie]

Only on Guns N' Roses forums are drummers considered completely expendable. Most 'great' bands possess drummers who are a vital component of their sound. I can only summarise that Guns N' Roses's fans are so acclimatised to randoms being switched around in a revolving line-up that they have lost that sense of a 'real band'. And really, the 'public only care about the Axl and Slash show' is not how I remember GN'R. Izzy is my favourite so you can take that philosophy and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Yeah, because Ringo was just as important to The Beatles as Lennon/McCartney, or Charlie Watts compared to Richards/Jagger.

Fact is, drummers serve a purpose, but the 5 minute drum solo in a live show is code for toilet break.

I think Charlie Watts is as important, most definitely. Ringo? Extremely underrated to say the least, his particular kind of drumming lent shades to The Beatleses music that otherwise would not have been there, just listen to Abbey Road.

But thats not the point is it, you dont look at works of art in those terms do you, they are a finite article, not a motor you are stripping down, The Beatles were The Beatles and Ringo was part of them and whatever they were and did Ringo was a part of that, this is music, why do people look at it with the eyes of an asset stripper?

You cant talk about these alternate realities of 'could it have worked without Ringo', whats that got to do with anything, there is one reality, its a one shot thing and each element is AS essential as the other, without Ringo you wouldnt've had a Beatles, simple as that 'but anyone can play like him!' Firstly no they cant and secondly, OK, lets say they could but they didnt all get on and broke up after two albums cuz of it? Or one of em was involved in a freak accident that this imaginary other drummer was a part of? Do you see how ridiculous and endless these sorts of odd hypotheseses are?

I see your point, but ultimately, the reason why the guitarist and the singer are traditionally the most celebrated members of any band is because that is where the emotional connection lies. It's in the songwriting, it's in the sincerity of the vocal delivery, it's in the chord voicings and note choices of the guitar. I'm not trying to say that a drummer doesn't have an important part to add into the mix, but it's no way near as important as the other stuff I mentioned.

The only people that that is for is for kids quite honestly. Kids that fall in love with music videos and all they see is a lead singer and a guitarist that they wannabe like, heroes and all that, it's total silliness, people that like music like music, thats drums, bass, singers, guitarists, it's a collaborative enterprise, you might have a certain affection for one over the other but this whole idea of everybody apart from the fuckin' lead singer and guitarist being sidemen is absolutely ridiculous.

I mean fuck it, why have drums at all, Lennon and McCartney melodies carried themselves, just have some tart clapping in the background...but then it wouldn't've been The Beatles would it?

You're being facetious Len. I don't believe what you said about kids falling in love with the pretty frontman and image etc has anything to do with it. When was anybody ever moved to tears by a drum solo? They are important components that help build a bigger picture, but take any song, you can strip it back and it can sound great with just a battered old acoustic and a singer and you can have the audience eating out of the palm of your hand. The same can't be said for the drummer. Nobody marvels in awe at the beauty and poetry of Dave Grohl's drum parts in Nirvana, it's Kurts songwriting, it's his delivery, his attitude and his authenticity. That's not to say that a song like Scentless Apprentice wouldn't be half the song it was without Uncle Dave pounding away, but still, it doesn't change the fact that nobody is there primarily for the drums.

There's a reason why this board has been rubbing one out over an Axl and Slash reunion. Take Slash out of the mix and suppose Axl just added Steven Adler to NuGNR 2016... do you really think people would be saying "GNR are back baby"? ...of course not. The whole notion that every member of a band is equally as important as the other is simply not true, and exists mostly because of old codgers romanticising about a specific group of musicians they grew to love.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Towelie

[DieselDaisy]

I cannot actually think of a single 'great' band in which the drummer is dismissed so flippantly by that band's fanbase, even with a degree of malice for instance, when people criticise Adler's intellectual capacities and speech infirmity - It truly is a nasty fanbase at times. It is more the surprising considering Guns were served quite well by their drummers: you remove Adler from Appetite and you lose the sound of Appetite to be honest - It just does not sound correct, like removing Watts from The Stones. I can only presume that GN'R's fanbase is so used to these 'musical chair' bands featuring nameless hired randoms, that they have forgotten what a band with an integral line-up feels like.

[Len Cnut]

Only on Guns N' Roses forums are drummers considered completely expendable. Most 'great' bands possess drummers who are a vital component of their sound. I can only summarise that Guns N' Roses's fans are so acclimatised to randoms being switched around in a revolving line-up that they have lost that sense of a 'real band'. And really, the 'public only care about the Axl and Slash show' is not how I remember GN'R. Izzy is my favourite so you can take that philosophy and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Yeah, because Ringo was just as important to The Beatles as Lennon/McCartney, or Charlie Watts compared to Richards/Jagger.

Fact is, drummers serve a purpose, but the 5 minute drum solo in a live show is code for toilet break.

I think Charlie Watts is as important, most definitely. Ringo? Extremely underrated to say the least, his particular kind of drumming lent shades to The Beatleses music that otherwise would not have been there, just listen to Abbey Road.

But thats not the point is it, you dont look at works of art in those terms do you, they are a finite article, not a motor you are stripping down, The Beatles were The Beatles and Ringo was part of them and whatever they were and did Ringo was a part of that, this is music, why do people look at it with the eyes of an asset stripper?

You cant talk about these alternate realities of 'could it have worked without Ringo', whats that got to do with anything, there is one reality, its a one shot thing and each element is AS essential as the other, without Ringo you wouldnt've had a Beatles, simple as that 'but anyone can play like him!' Firstly no they cant and secondly, OK, lets say they could but they didnt all get on and broke up after two albums cuz of it? Or one of em was involved in a freak accident that this imaginary other drummer was a part of? Do you see how ridiculous and endless these sorts of odd hypotheseses are?

I see your point, but ultimately, the reason why the guitarist and the singer are traditionally the most celebrated members of any band is because that is where the emotional connection lies. It's in the songwriting, it's in the sincerity of the vocal delivery, it's in the chord voicings and note choices of the guitar. I'm not trying to say that a drummer doesn't have an important part to add into the mix, but it's no way near as important as the other stuff I mentioned.

The only people that that is for is for kids quite honestly. Kids that fall in love with music videos and all they see is a lead singer and a guitarist that they wannabe like, heroes and all that, it's total silliness, people that like music like music, thats drums, bass, singers, guitarists, it's a collaborative enterprise, you might have a certain affection for one over the other but this whole idea of everybody apart from the fuckin' lead singer and guitarist being sidemen is absolutely ridiculous.

I mean fuck it, why have drums at all, Lennon and McCartney melodies carried themselves, just have some tart clapping in the background...but then it wouldn't've been The Beatles would it?

You're being facetious Len. I don't believe what you said about kids falling in love with the pretty frontman and image etc has anything to do with it. When was anybody ever moved to tears by a drum solo? They are important components that help build a bigger picture, but take any song, you can strip it back and it can sound great with just a battered old acoustic and a singer and you can have the audience eating out of the palm of your hands. The same can't be said for the drummer. Nobody marvels in awe at the beauty and poetry of Dave Grohl's drum parts in Nirvana, it's Kurts songwriting, it's his delivery, his attitude and his authenticity. That's not to say that a song like Scentless Apprentice wouldn't be half the song it was without Uncle Dave pounding away, but still, it doesn't change the fact that nobody is there primarily for the drums.

There's a reason why this board has been rubbing one out over an Axl and Slash reunion. Take Slash out of the mix and suppose Axl just added Steven Adler to NuGNR 2016... do you really think people would be saying "GNR are back baby"... of course not. The whole notion that every member of a band is equally as important as the other is simply not true, and exists mostly because of old codgers romanticising about a specific group of musicians they grew to love.

Kurts work moves me emotionally but Daves drumming is what gives me the physical buzz, the desire to leap through fucking brick walls, the kick of the music, the power and depth of it is Dave, make no fuckin mistake about that! Dave is a really bad example for your point, the loud quiet loud dynamic that REALLY made Nirvanas music work was 50% down to Dave, I give him all the credit in the world, its just fucking top of the pops syndrome, this weird eroticism people project onto lead singers and guitarists, it really is a little girls thing.

This trimming of and assigning inflated importance to one member over the other is just to do with like 'my favorites John!' 'No, i like Paul better!' 'No i like George!' Etc etc

Edited January 7, 2016 by Len B'stard

[dalsh327]

I think Duff would be more comfortable having Matt play drums because they'd probably jog each others memories on the UYI songs, esp. if they're doing songs they haven't done in years. It's not really about Frank or Matt's playing.

They might be considering 2 drummers for Coachella for all we know, Axl was considering it with Frank and Brain so it's not the first time a 2 drummer GNR subject has come up. They have 3 guitarists (sometimes Pitman makes 4) and 3 keyboardists (Axl sometimes, Chris, and Dizzy) so why not 2 drummers? Why not 3 (plus Duff and Chris play percussion)?

No one's asking about whether they're bringing the horns and backing singers back..yet.

[Towelie]

Only on Guns N' Roses forums are drummers considered completely expendable. Most 'great' bands possess drummers who are a vital component of their sound. I can only summarise that Guns N' Roses's fans are so acclimatised to randoms being switched around in a revolving line-up that they have lost that sense of a 'real band'. And really, the 'public only care about the Axl and Slash show' is not how I remember GN'R. Izzy is my favourite so you can take that philosophy and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Yeah, because Ringo was just as important to The Beatles as Lennon/McCartney, or Charlie Watts compared to Richards/Jagger.

Fact is, drummers serve a purpose, but the 5 minute drum solo in a live show is code for toilet break.

I think Charlie Watts is as important, most definitely. Ringo? Extremely underrated to say the least, his particular kind of drumming lent shades to The Beatleses music that otherwise would not have been there, just listen to Abbey Road.

But thats not the point is it, you dont look at works of art in those terms do you, they are a finite article, not a motor you are stripping down, The Beatles were The Beatles and Ringo was part of them and whatever they were and did Ringo was a part of that, this is music, why do people look at it with the eyes of an asset stripper?

You cant talk about these alternate realities of 'could it have worked without Ringo', whats that got to do with anything, there is one reality, its a one shot thing and each element is AS essential as the other, without Ringo you wouldnt've had a Beatles, simple as that 'but anyone can play like him!' Firstly no they cant and secondly, OK, lets say they could but they didnt all get on and broke up after two albums cuz of it? Or one of em was involved in a freak accident that this imaginary other drummer was a part of? Do you see how ridiculous and endless these sorts of odd hypotheseses are?

I see your point, but ultimately, the reason why the guitarist and the singer are traditionally the most celebrated members of any band is because that is where the emotional connection lies. It's in the songwriting, it's in the sincerity of the vocal delivery, it's in the chord voicings and note choices of the guitar. I'm not trying to say that a drummer doesn't have an important part to add into the mix, but it's no way near as important as the other stuff I mentioned.

The only people that that is for is for kids quite honestly. Kids that fall in love with music videos and all they see is a lead singer and a guitarist that they wannabe like, heroes and all that, it's total silliness, people that like music like music, thats drums, bass, singers, guitarists, it's a collaborative enterprise, you might have a certain affection for one over the other but this whole idea of everybody apart from the fuckin' lead singer and guitarist being sidemen is absolutely ridiculous.

I mean fuck it, why have drums at all, Lennon and McCartney melodies carried themselves, just have some tart clapping in the background...but then it wouldn't've been The Beatles would it?

You're being facetious Len. I don't believe what you said about kids falling in love with the pretty frontman and image etc has anything to do with it. When was anybody ever moved to tears by a drum solo? They are important components that help build a bigger picture, but take any song, you can strip it back and it can sound great with just a battered old acoustic and a singer and you can have the audience eating out of the palm of your hands. The same can't be said for the drummer. Nobody marvels in awe at the beauty and poetry of Dave Grohl's drum parts in Nirvana, it's Kurts songwriting, it's his delivery, his attitude and his authenticity. That's not to say that a song like Scentless Apprentice wouldn't be half the song it was without Uncle Dave pounding away, but still, it doesn't change the fact that nobody is there primarily for the drums.

There's a reason why this board has been rubbing one out over an Axl and Slash reunion. Take Slash out of the mix and suppose Axl just added Steven Adler to NuGNR 2016... do you really think people would be saying "GNR are back baby"... of course not. The whole notion that every member of a band is equally as important as the other is simply not true, and exists mostly because of old codgers romanticising about a specific group of musicians they grew to love.

Kurts work moves me emotionally but Daves drumming is what gives me the physical buzz, the desire to leap through fucking brick walls, the kick of the music, the power and depth of it is Dave, make no fuckin mistake about that! Dave is a really bad example for your point, the loud quiet loud dynamic that REALLY made Nirvanas music work was 50% down to Dave, I give him all the credit in the world, its just fucking top of the pops syndrome, this weird eroticism people project onto lead singers and guitarists, it really is a little girls thing.

This trimming of and assigning inflated importance to one member over the other is just to do with like 'my favorites John!' 'No, i like Paul better!' 'No i like George!' Etc etc

We're not talking about pinups, we're talking about musicians

It would be wonderful if we lived in this utopian society where everyone was equally gifted, but that's not the real world.

If every member is of equal significance, then why has one member of original GNR been able to single handedly carry on the band selling out arenas the world over while another member plays drums in local divebars and taverns? I don't believe it's because anybody fancies Axl Rose.

[alfierose]

I suppose if you're Axl, testing the waters with this whole reunion thing it makes sense not to crowd yourself out with a bunch of people who were 'enemies' of yours a few months ago, keep the averages on your side, make sure you got more of your mates on the squad than people you've had issues with, also Matt joined a bit late in the day too so i don't suppose he has the same affection for him as you would for Slash of Stoke and Duff.

As it stands, presumably you got Axl, Dizzy, Tittman, Fortus, Ferrer, all Axls mates...and then Slash and Duff...if they wanna get fuckin' funny a lead guitarist and bass player can be replaced on short notice but add a drummer into that mix and all he's left with is a fuckin' rhythm guitarist and a couple of keyboard wankers. If they got guitar drums and bass on their side thats basically the core of the music isn't it, you're kinda more to ransom that way if they wanna fuck around.

That's sort of what what I was saying...but with more swears.

[Len Cnut]

Only on Guns N' Roses forums are drummers considered completely expendable. Most 'great' bands possess drummers who are a vital component of their sound. I can only summarise that Guns N' Roses's fans are so acclimatised to randoms being switched around in a revolving line-up that they have lost that sense of a 'real band'. And really, the 'public only care about the Axl and Slash show' is not how I remember GN'R. Izzy is my favourite so you can take that philosophy and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Yeah, because Ringo was just as important to The Beatles as Lennon/McCartney, or Charlie Watts compared to Richards/Jagger.

Fact is, drummers serve a purpose, but the 5 minute drum solo in a live show is code for toilet break.

I think Charlie Watts is as important, most definitely. Ringo? Extremely underrated to say the least, his particular kind of drumming lent shades to The Beatleses music that otherwise would not have been there, just listen to Abbey Road.

But thats not the point is it, you dont look at works of art in those terms do you, they are a finite article, not a motor you are stripping down, The Beatles were The Beatles and Ringo was part of them and whatever they were and did Ringo was a part of that, this is music, why do people look at it with the eyes of an asset stripper?

You cant talk about these alternate realities of 'could it have worked without Ringo', whats that got to do with anything, there is one reality, its a one shot thing and each element is AS essential as the other, without Ringo you wouldnt've had a Beatles, simple as that 'but anyone can play like him!' Firstly no they cant and secondly, OK, lets say they could but they didnt all get on and broke up after two albums cuz of it? Or one of em was involved in a freak accident that this imaginary other drummer was a part of? Do you see how ridiculous and endless these sorts of odd hypotheseses are?

I see your point, but ultimately, the reason why the guitarist and the singer are traditionally the most celebrated members of any band is because that is where the emotional connection lies. It's in the songwriting, it's in the sincerity of the vocal delivery, it's in the chord voicings and note choices of the guitar. I'm not trying to say that a drummer doesn't have an important part to add into the mix, but it's no way near as important as the other stuff I mentioned.

The only people that that is for is for kids quite honestly. Kids that fall in love with music videos and all they see is a lead singer and a guitarist that they wannabe like, heroes and all that, it's total silliness, people that like music like music, thats drums, bass, singers, guitarists, it's a collaborative enterprise, you might have a certain affection for one over the other but this whole idea of everybody apart from the fuckin' lead singer and guitarist being sidemen is absolutely ridiculous.

I mean fuck it, why have drums at all, Lennon and McCartney melodies carried themselves, just have some tart clapping in the background...but then it wouldn't've been The Beatles would it?

You're being facetious Len. I don't believe what you said about kids falling in love with the pretty frontman and image etc has anything to do with it. When was anybody ever moved to tears by a drum solo? They are important components that help build a bigger picture, but take any song, you can strip it back and it can sound great with just a battered old acoustic and a singer and you can have the audience eating out of the palm of your hands. The same can't be said for the drummer. Nobody marvels in awe at the beauty and poetry of Dave Grohl's drum parts in Nirvana, it's Kurts songwriting, it's his delivery, his attitude and his authenticity. That's not to say that a song like Scentless Apprentice wouldn't be half the song it was without Uncle Dave pounding away, but still, it doesn't change the fact that nobody is there primarily for the drums.

There's a reason why this board has been rubbing one out over an Axl and Slash reunion. Take Slash out of the mix and suppose Axl just added Steven Adler to NuGNR 2016... do you really think people would be saying "GNR are back baby"... of course not. The whole notion that every member of a band is equally as important as the other is simply not true, and exists mostly because of old codgers romanticising about a specific group of musicians they grew to love.

Kurts work moves me emotionally but Daves drumming is what gives me the physical buzz, the desire to leap through fucking brick walls, the kick of the music, the power and depth of it is Dave, make no fuckin mistake about that! Dave is a really bad example for your point, the loud quiet loud dynamic that REALLY made Nirvanas music work was 50% down to Dave, I give him all the credit in the world, its just fucking top of the pops syndrome, this weird eroticism people project onto lead singers and guitarists, it really is a little girls thing.

This trimming of and assigning inflated importance to one member over the other is just to do with like 'my favorites John!' 'No, i like Paul better!' 'No i like George!' Etc etc

We're not talking about pinups, we're talking about musicians

It would be wonderful if we lived in this utopian society where everyone was equally gifted, but that's not the real world.

If every member is of equal significance, then why has one member of original GNR been able to single handedly carry on the band selling out arenas the world over while another member plays drums in local divebars and taverns? I don't believe it's because anybody fancies Axl Rose.

No ones saying they're AS gifted...but they are all important, are they AS important? Well yes insofar as reality happens once and in reality when you have a good or great band its THOSE people that did it, what would of wouldn't've happen if my granny had bollocks is irrelevant.

I notice you tend to like artists or collectives where theres like a BIG personality at the helm, a Jacko or a Prince or an Axl or a Morrissey, perhaps thats it, for my part I've only ever really been interested in bangin' tunes.

The reason one member has carried GnR while the other played dive bars is because one kept the name and kept the delusion alive that this was something to do with what those other guys were a part of creating when it wasn't...and the fact that he is reuniting with some of those old guys is testament to the fact that he couldnt carry the name alone and this reunion will be proof that even three of them cant because they're old and knackered and dont have it about em to create what they did the way they did and you can bet me on that one.