Should the band perform Velvet Revolver songs?

[SoulMonster]

22 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

What a dodge.

GN'R were dissolved in late 1995. Fact.

As I said, a silly technicality.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

As I said, a silly technicality.

Fairly big technicality I would say, legally dissolving the band and creating a new band with the same name!!

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Fairly big technicality I would say, legally dissolving the band and creating a new band with the same name!!

Of course you would say that, after all you are using this silliness as an argument for why CD wasn't released by Guns N' Roses

[Free Bird]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Of course you would say that, after all you are using this silliness as an argument for why CD wasn't released by Guns N' Roses

A big fucking silliness by Axl Rose. A real dig move. But also a fact. Is it hard for you to live with the truth? 

Same name, different band. Fact.

[Bono]

I'd refer they played VR songs over CD songs but reality is not very many people care to hear either or. Most people would prefer a more diverse GNR setlist with deeper UYI tracks bein included. Nobody is dying to hear VR songs just like nobody is dying to hear CD songs. 

[Bono]

On 2/28/2016 at 7:34 PM, axlslash said:

Absolutely not to both. Chinese Democracy is a Guns N' Roses album. Have a look at your CD. The name is right there on the spine: Guns N' Roses. Go to the record store. There, right along side all other Guns N' Roses albums, is Chinese Democracy. You want Snakepit? Look under Snakepit. You want VR? They have a section too. This band is Guns N Roses. They should do Guns N Roses songs.

LOL people still holding on to that argument as if those who are amped up for this "reunion" even give a fuck about the CD songs being played as if they are TRULY Guns N Roses songs. Too funny. CD songs are a side project by Axl Rose. They are NOT Guns N Roses songs in the same way every other Guns N Roses song is a TRUE Guns N Roses song. 

On 2/28/2016 at 0:01 AM, downzy said:

I've always been curious how Axl would sound on Fall to Pieces or Last Fight.  If they're up for it, why not?  Either way I'm good.  Just happy to see Axl and Slash on the same stage again. 

What  shame it woud be if they did play VR songs and went with one of the all time most horrible songs(Fall to Pieces)  ever written by any band or artist period

[downzy]

3 minutes ago, Bono said:

 

What  shame it woud be if they did play VR songs and went with one of the all time most horrible songs(Fall to Pieces)  ever written by any band or artist period

Says you.  A lot of people, including myself, like the song.  

[axlslash]

1 hour ago, Bono said:

LOL people still holding on to that argument as if those who are amped up for this "reunion" even give a fuck about the CD songs being played as if they are TRULY Guns N Roses songs. Too funny. CD songs are a side project by Axl Rose. They are NOT Guns N Roses songs in the same way every other Guns N Roses song is a TRUE Guns N Roses song.

Well, the spine of the album, iTunes, and the music section at Best Buy beg to differ.

[-W.A.R-]

1 hour ago, Bono said:

I'd refer they played VR songs over CD songs but reality is not very many people care to hear either or. Most people would prefer a more diverse GNR setlist with deeper UYI tracks bein included. Nobody is dying to hear VR songs just like nobody is dying to hear CD songs. 

im dying to hear Madagascar with Slash solo in place of the quotes

[DieselDaisy]

45 minutes ago, axlslash said:

Well, the spine of the album, iTunes, and the music section at Best Buy beg to differ.

That is because Axl utilised a con trick.

[axlslash]

17 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is because Axl utilised a con trick.

I think you misspelled "legal control over the band's name"

[jmapelian]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Apollo said:

????????????

IMO they already play too many covers. Adding more would be crazy. Sort of like releasing the CD remix album instead of CD2. 

If you had to pick would you choose five brand new songs or five covers from Loaded, VR and Snake Pit?

I was answering the question as to why they would play a VR or Snakepit tune rather than some AC/DC or other cover song.  Not so much they should.  I'd rather them play some new shit in addition to AFD and some deep UYI tracks 

[PITBOSS]

I would welcome it if they did a VR song or two- it's gonna be unlikely, I'm sure Axl sees that as a competing project they had without him. Like someone else said we might get DR Alibi or a Slash tune while Axl is taking a breather if they can find something one of the other guys can sing.

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, axlslash said:

I think you misspelled "legal control over the band's name"

Nope,. He created a new band and called it the same name as the old band. That is a con job by anyone's estimation, anyone that is but a blind Axl nutter. If Jagger formed a new band and called it the Stones, it would also be a con job.

It is like some 1980's yuppie business thing, what Rose did; Wolf of Wall Street eat your heart out.

Edited March 1, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[Route66]

I would say yes to both. But not a lot. Just as a nod to the past. Every band has a past, present and a future. If GNR truly want to move on they need to recognize the past. If this is not going to happen then fine. I really dont see a lasting future in denial.

[Tyler Drama]

"Since Axl is having the band do Chinese Democracy era material"

Is there actually any proof of this at all?

[wasted]

What if new VR material is drafted into GNR. Axl seemed interested in the cords that became Fall to Pieces. Maybe VR had the rockers CD had the ballads/epics? 

With Izzy out, there's only 2 guitarists in GNR, what if Dave K joins? 

[SoulMonster]

13 hours ago, Free Bird said:

A big fucking silliness by Axl Rose. A real dig move. But also a fact. Is it hard for you to live with the truth? 

Same name, different band. Fact.

Again, just a technicality. Most people don't look to legal records to determine whether a band is a band or not :D. They look to the band's name and continuity of lineup, and whether it is contested or not. To most people a band isn't first and foremost a legal entity, a band is a collection of musician playing under a specific name. That's why it is the same band BEFORE they set up legal documents to protect the brand, divying out income, define owners, etc, after they do all this legal stuff, and after these legal documents are changed, AS LONG as it is all uncontested. The underlying legal documents are irrelevant because people don't define a band on them. Only a few fans who are having trouble coming to grips with the evolution of GN'R would point to legal inconsistency as an argument for why it isn't Guns N' Roses. Maybe they are aspiring lawyer geeks? You don't see this anywhere else. Again, it is a nothing but  an irrelevant technicality that only exists as a subject among the bitterest of fans.

[SoulMonster]

11 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is because Axl utilised a con trick.

No, it is because everybody else in the world doesn't define a band upon legal documents, but upon continuity of name, lineups and whether it is uncontested. Just like a band continues to be that band before and after it sets up legal documents protecting its brand, ownership, etc, it also continues to be the same band when such documents are changed, revised and even terminated and re-instated, UNLESS contested.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No, it is because everybody else in the world doesn't define a band upon legal documents, but upon continuity of name, lineups and whether it is uncontested. Just like a band continues to be that band before and after it sets up legal documents protecting its brand, ownership, etc, it also continues to be the same band when such documents are changed, revised and even terminated and re-instated, UNLESS contested.

It is not a change in mere legal documentation, a revision, etc. It is the dissolution of the 1985-95 band and the creation of an entirely new band! I'm sorry that this inconvenient fact will not go away for you or reduce itself to a 'minor technicality'. In reply to what I have highlighted in bold, you said it! There was next to no continuity of line-up and in fact nothing of much between 1996 and 2001 (and then they did not even release anything until 2008). It is a fault line in Guns N' Roses's history.

 

[SoulMonster]

41 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is not a change in mere legal documentation, a revision, etc. It is the dissolution of the 1985-95 band and the creation of an entirely new band! I'm sorry that this inconvenient fact will not go away for you or reduce itself to a 'minor technicality'. In reply to what I have highlighted in bold, you said it! There was next to no continuity of line-up and in fact nothing of much between 1996 and 2001 (and then they did not even release anything until 2008). It is a fault line in Guns N' Roses's history.

 

It is a mere technicality because no one cares about it beyond some disgruntled GN'R fans. It doesn't affect or change what the rest of the world thinks about GN'R, because -- and pay attention now -- most people don't look to legal documents to define their bands. It is simply not how it works in the real world. The legal entity is separate from the band as it is in peoples' perceptions.

There was a continuity of lineup in the sense that members from before continued. Not an intact lineup, but it wasn't like someone else entirely decided to start a band called GN'R when they saw an opening for it. 33 % of he former owners (?) continued, and as far as lineups go this all happened in a period with transitions. Axl and Dizzy continued, probably also Duff (quitting later), maybe even Slash. I don't know exactly when these guys quit the band in relation to when the new legal documents came in place, because it is...irrelevant and nothing but a technical detail.

[DieselDaisy]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It is a mere technicality because no one cares about it beyond some disgruntled GN'R fans. It doesn't affect or change what the rest of the world thinks about GN'R, because -- and pay attention now -- most people don't look to legal documents to define their bands. It is simply not how it works in the real world. The legal entity is separate from the band as it is in peoples' perceptions.

There was a continuity of lineup in the sense that members from before continued. Not an intact lineup, but it wasn't like someone else entirely decided to start a band called GN'R when they saw an opening for it. 33 % of he former owners (?) continued, and as far as lineups go this all happened in a period with transitions. Axl and Dizzy continued, probably also Duff (quitting later), maybe even Slash. I don't know exactly when these guys quit the band in relation to when the new legal documents came in place, because it is...irrelevant and nothing but a technical detail.

That is why the con worked, or semi-worked. In order for the con to work, the people would have to walk into a store, see 'Guns N' Roses' on the cover of Chinese Democracy and think it was a Guns N' Roses album they were buying. Axl's takeover was pure Machiavellianism. In fact he did not takeover the band. Taking over the band would be too complicated. He created a new band with the same name. Duplicity and cunning do not come greater.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is why the con worked, or semi-worked. In order for the con to work, the people would have to walk into a store, see 'Guns N' Roses' on the cover of Chinese Democracy and think it was a Guns N' Roses album they were buying. Axl's takeover was pure Machiavellianism. In fact he did not takeover the band. Taking over the band would be too complicated. He created a new band with the same name. Duplicity and cunning do not come greater.

They don't "think" it is a GN'R album they are buying, they are actually buying a GN'R record based on their own understanding of what GN'R is, and not based on technical trivialities.

[wasted]

Anyone duped by Bucket into thinking he was the original GNR guitarist probably didn't care that much about GNR. 

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

They don't "think" it is a GN'R album they are buying, they are actually buying a GN'R record based on their own understanding of what GN'R is, and not based on technical trivialities.

I disagree. If McCartney had 'The Beatles' on the front cover of Band on the Run, it would not be The Beatles, no matter what the lettering says.