Should the band perform Velvet Revolver songs?

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

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.

People would probably not accept it as Beatles, but if he owned the name "Beatles", like Axl does for GN'R, then strictly legally speaking it would be Beatles. Would it be the same band? Probably not in most peoples' minds because there would be too much of a seperation between the old Beatles and the new Beatles, both in terms of lineup and time, despite Paul still being there, and I am sure Ringo and George would contest the matter. If, on the other hand, Paul secured the name years prior, contiued immediately with the new Beatles with some lineup members coming along, and managed to stave off any protests from disgruntled former partner/lineup members, then I am sure he could have managed to secure a new era for "Beatles", for better or for worse, to the extent that the whole world, except some bitter fans of old Beatles who couldn't adapt to the change, would accept and acknowledge that this was the same band albeit a changed band.

[Bards]

I don't think they should be doing VR or CD material. Stick to GNR stuff.

[wasted]

I can't think of any VR songs that would work with Axl singing. 

They might do This I Love or SoD. 

I think it will be more UYI and Spag Incident songs. 

Couple new songs? Come on live a little!

[Philipm787]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

People would probably not accept it as Beatles, but if he owned the name "Beatles", like Axl does for GN'R, then strictly legally speaking it would be Beatles. Would it be the same band? Probably not in most peoples' minds because there would be too much of a seperation between the old Beatles and the new Beatles, both in terms of lineup and time, despite Paul still being there, and I am sure Ringo and George would contest the matter. If, on the other hand, Paul secured the name years prior, contiued immediately with the new Beatles with some lineup members coming along, and managed to stave off any protests from disgruntled former partner/lineup members, then I am sure he could have managed to secure a new era for "Beatles", for better or for worse, to the extent that the whole world, except some bitter fans of old Beatles who couldn't adapt to the change, would accept and acknowledge that this was the same band albeit a changed band.

 Guns N'Roses post '96 is not a changed band, its a whole new band. Guns N'Roses ceased to exist around 95-96 when the real band was legally dissolved and past members refused to join the new band, and that's what it was, a whole new band formed circa '96/97 called Guns N'Roses, with one former member of the real banding now leading a new band, having shadily obtained the name, with new members and very few new tunes, which was a complete messy trainwreck in the end, now being redeemed with Slash and Duff joining this form of Guns N'Roses to create a nice pension fund, while also warming the hearts of 99.9% of GNR fans around world. If we get new tunes recorded by the members of the real band, that'd be incredible, but I'm not banking on it, hence avoiding further disappointment in a band full of disappointments post Slash era.

[dalsh327]

If they did VR or Snakepit it would probably be when Axl took a break and Myles happened to be at the show. 

I think people would be shocked if they did Sympathy for the Devil, "the song that broke GNR up" but people love the song and Slash played it with Perry Farrell before. 

[Tyler Drama]

6 hours ago, GNRSkidRow1 said:

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

Is there actually any proof of this at all?

Alright then, I'm assuming there isn't. Probably because they're not going to.

[Free Bird]

6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

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.

You seem to be the only bitter one here.

For you it's nothing m9re than a technicality. That's your opinion dude.

The fact ist, Axl leaved the band and created another.  His solo project with a vast number of different musicans. 

He called them GNR but they factually wasn't the classic band that the world loved. 

Don't try to tell people what's a fact and what's an opinion when you don't know the difference.

[tsinindy]

13 minutes ago, Free Bird said:

You seem to be the only bitter one here.

For you it's nothing m9re than a technicality. That's your opinion dude.

The fact ist, Axl leaved the band and created another.  His solo project with a vast number of different musicans. 

He called them GNR but they factually wasn't the classic band that the world loved. 

Don't try to tell people what's a fact and what's an opinion when you don't know the difference.

Actually...and I hate to do this.  BC I don't see eye to eye with @SoulMonster

But you just made his point.  Factually, CD is a Guns N Roses record.  That's a legal issue and it's a fact.

It is your opinion (and mine) that it really isn't a GnR record for the reasons you stated.  That is opinion.

[DieselDaisy]

14 minutes ago, tsinindy said:

Actually...and I hate to do this.  BC I don't see eye to eye with @SoulMonster

But you just made his point.  Factually, CD is a Guns N Roses record.  That's a legal issue and it's a fact.

It is your opinion (and mine) that it really isn't a GnR record for the reasons you stated.  That is opinion.

It is a 'Guns N' Roses' record but that 'Guns N' Roses' is not the same entity that existed 1985 - 1995.

[tsinindy]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is a 'Guns N' Roses' record but that 'Guns N' Roses' is not the same entity that existed 1985 - 1995.

Could not agree more.  I hadn't tried to listen to that record for several years and I tried a few days ago....couldn't do it.

[Philipm787]

@SoulMonster an irrelevant technicality only known by bitterest fans? Slashs book was a bestseller, and he paints the picture of the contractual downgrading and rebranding which he rerefused to join, so I take great pleasure in calling your bullshit, again.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is a 'Guns N' Roses' record but that 'Guns N' Roses' is not the same entity that existed 1985 - 1995.

No one claims it is. Like everything else, bands change. Accept it.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Philipm787 said:

@SoulMonster an irrelevant technicality only known by bitterest fans? Slashs book was a bestseller, and he paints the picture of the contractual downgrading and rebranding which he rerefused to join, so I take great pleasure in calling your bullshit, again.

The only thing you have managed to do is paint Slash as bitter

Seriously, there is no right or wrong here. If you happen to be the type of person who looks to legal documents to define bands (rock on!), then Guns N' Roses as a brand probably had a break in existence somewhere (I say probably because it matters whether we talk about the name or the brand). No problem. On the other hand, if you are like most people, who don't think that rock bands should be defined by such things but rather focus on continuity of lineups, music, name, brand, etc, then, although these things have changed a lot with GN'R over the years in a flowing process, then you accept that it is the same band who has been around since 1985., although radically altered over the years Again, no worries, no right or wrong here, just differences in what is important to us, where we put our emphases, and, possible, our motives for doing so.

[Philipm787]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No one claims it is. Like everything else, bands change. Accept it.

The band did not change, a new one was created, you accept that.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Philipm787 said:

The band did not change, a new one was created, you accept that.

No, the partnership ended and a new was created, but the band existed throughout this. Again, I consider a band separate from whatever legal documents are in place to secure brand, ownership, rights, etc. That is how a band can exist BEFORE such documents are drawn up, and how it can continuoysly exist in period of transition where such documents are revised or even terminated and issued.

[SoulMonster]

I don't know why this is so hard. Consider GN'R back before the partnership contract was made up. Did the band not exist prior to this?? Did the band suddenly come to exist when Axl, Duff and Slash signed the documents? NO! The legal entity came to be, but the band started to exist from the very moment the first lineup decided to play music under that name.

[Philipm787]

Well, sorry @SoulMonster, but i disagree

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Philipm787 said:

Well, sorry @SoulMonster, but i disagree

No need to be sorry. You are entirely free to think that a band is inseparate from its legal entity. It's a minor opinion but without minor opinions life would be boring.

[RussTCB]

I'd love it if they did at least Fall To Pieces & Slither.

[DieselDaisy]

Soul Monster, you are really under playing the power grab. Let's say - hypothetically - that the partnership/old band ended on 31st December 1995 (as happened) however Axl did not form another band with the same name. We would all be saying that ''31st December 1995 is the day Guns N' Roses ended because, that is the day Axl dissolved the band by leaving the partnership in legal documentation''.

[sanity_lost]

A band is made up of musicians-

Guns n' Roses from 1985 - 1989 is a different band from 1990 - 1991 which is again different than 1991 to 1994 which is again different to... you get the idea.

However all of them were named Guns n' Roses. All the albums are Guns n' Roses albums. It says so right on the label.

The above is all solely my opinion, of course.

[Free Bird]

12 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't know why this is so hard. Consider GN'R back before the partnership contract was made up. Did the band not exist prior to this?? Did the band suddenly come to exist when Axl, Duff and Slash signed the documents? NO! The legal entity came to be, but the band started to exist from the very moment the first lineup decided to play music under that name.

Of course the band started to exist prior Axl's dick move. The band changed before Axl's dick move. 

But it endet right there when Axl took the decision to leave. 

At first you called it a technicality, now you are searching for other excuses but all that doesn't change the fact that there were two bands out there with the name GNR. One of them were very successful, the other not. One is in the RNRHOF, the other not. One of them wrote rock history and the other... not so much ...

[SoulMonster]

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Soul Monster, you are really under playing the power grab. Let's say - hypothetically - that the partnership/old band ended on 31st December 1995 (as happened) however Axl did not form another band with the same name. We would all be saying that ''31st December 1995 is the day Guns N' Roses ended because, that is the day Axl dissolved the band by leaving the partnership in legal documentation''.

Haha, no, only a lawyer geek would say anything like that! Do you even believe what you are saying yourself? We would say, "that is the day the band ended", or, if we want to explain, "that is the day the band broke up" as in the band members stopping to be a band.

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, Free Bird said:

Of course the band started to exist prior Axl's dick move. The band changed before Axl's dick move. 

But it endet right there when Axl took the decision to leave.

If you are going to equal the band with the existence of the partnership agreement between Slash, Duff and Axl, and argue that the band ended when the partnership agreement was terminated, then you have to be internally consistent and accept that the band came to be first when that partnership agreement was entered. You can't have it both ways.

Anyway, I find that argumentation peculiar to say the least. No one really equates a band with its legal documentation. A band is a group of musicians playing together under the same name. It is that simple. If, on the other hand, I should consider the scenario where the band's existence relies upon its legal documentation (which I don't and I find silly), then I would argue that the partnership agreement isn't the only legal documentation that defines Guns N' Roses as a legal entity, you also have trademark and brand name licenses, and, if I am not entirely mistaken, Axl owned the band name throughout this process. There was not a single point in time where all legal documents seized to be and the name was up for grab by third parties. There is a continuity in this, a continuity in GN'R being a legal entity.

But again, this is an irrelevant technicality. Only people reaching for arguments would say that "nuGN'R" isn't Guns N' Roses because one agreement that defined the band as a business ended and another was drawn up. One is left to ponder what motivates people to look for such esoteric arguments to make a separation between the version of GN'R they love and the version of GN'R they dislike. Are you embarrased over what has happened with GN'R? Do you take it personally? Are your friends mocking you for liking GN'R so you have to say, "I only like the real GN'R, the one that ended when the business partnership agreement between Duff, Slash and Axl was terminated leaving the band that is playing now as an fake", or something like that. I don't get it. Nothing takes away from the glory of GN'R in its heyday. You can have whatever feelings you wil about nuGN'R, it doesn't tarnish what happened in the 1980s. It is possible to only like parts of GN'R history, you don't have to design weird arguments to make GN'R "pure". Just say, "I like GN'R back in the 90s, I don't like GN'R since then". It isn't hard.

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Haha, no, only a lawyer geek would say anything like that! Do you even believe what you are saying yourself? We would say, "that is the day the band ended", or, if we want to explain, "that is the day the band broke up" as in the band members stopping to be a band.

If (hypothetically) Axl did not create a new band, and somebody wrote a biography on Guns N' Roses, a statement like ''Guns N' Roses ended on December 31st 1995'' would be apt and even expected.