Richard has been in GNR for 16 years quote

[Tom2112]

3 hours ago, Asia said:

I don't know why it is so hard for some people to understand that regardless of what the actual name was the band that existed between 1996 and 2016 was NOT Guns N'Roses by means of what GNR really represents in terms of the compilation of musical talents involved that created the band, the band's entire music catalogue, their fame, the famous quality of performance etc.

The 1996-2016 bad was Axl's band or Nu GNR, one may like it or not, one may consider it great, one may even think it better than the original if they're crazy enough, but the FACT IS it had NOTHING in common with the band we knew from 1986-1993, period. And in a way even they admit it by returning to the old logo and old graphics of the band. There's a clear line made here between the old-real GNR and the Axl's solo GN'R in the logo change.

I can see that Axl desperately wants to stick to the idea that he saved GNR and thanks to his efforts it exists and that he wants CD to be included as the proper GNR album and obviously Slash and Duff compromised on this but nevertheless saying Fortus is a member of GNR for 16 years and sort of juxtaposing it with Slash and Duff's ten years only is pretty much out of place here. Unless he added that Mr McKagan and Mr Slash have been in the band for 10 years but they created all the music that made it famous and worked out the value of its name while Mr Fortus just played somebody eles's guitar parts for 16 years.

When he only mentions Fortus's 16 years in GNR and does it in the presence of Slash and Duff who we know spent less time in that band it can be interpeted as undermining their meaning and position in the organization regardless of whether it is intended or not. He could just shut up about such controversial things right here and right now, had he any tact. If he want's to appreciate Richard, he can do it in miliion other ways.

 

No, the FACT is 1996-2014 WAS GUNS N' ROSES. Whitesnake are still whitesnake with entirely new line ups, Megadeth is still Megadeth, 90% of bands lose key members and are STILL out there. These bands are all STILL legitimate while they create new music and perform the back catalogue and especially while people pay for it. 

Were GnR 1996-2014 the same band as 1985-1996? musically, no! As a partnership? no. It wasn't the same band, different people, different ways of playing. However, while they played under The GnR name, they were by law and everything else OFFICIALLY Guns N' Roses. And, once again when a band retains the voice... It's even more legitimate.

If Guns N' Roses 1996-2014 was Steven adler and 6 other guys would that be GnR? If he owned the name? yes. Would I like it? I'm guessing no! would I say "this isn't Gnr" almost certainly, but in that case it would be fact that the Adler Guns that I mentioned would be officially GnR. 

You may counter and argue this 'til your blue in the face, but what I'm saying IS fact, and what you are saying is opinion. 

[Gorthar]

13 hours ago, BlackHoleGravity said:

Well, I could be wrong, but I get the feeling that Slash would be more in his comfort zone with a more dedicated rhythm player partner, than a monster player like Fortus.

Yeah, I get this impression, too. Fortus and Slash seem to do okay onstage together but just because two guitar players are really good doesn't necessarily mean they are going to mesh well. I know from reading past interviews with Slash that he didn't initially want Izzy in the band because he wanted to be in charge of what was going on "guitar wise". And he also does all the studio guitar work for the Conspirators by himself and only has the additional guitarist for the tours. Having said that, though, they are both professionals and will make it work

And RE: Axl's comments, I think he is just taking a dig at the "Where's Izzy" clowns trying to antagonize him.

[FuriousStyles]

44 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

The issue isn't who is or is not lucky to be in GNR. The issue is that some people keep saying this is being marketed as a GNR Reunion which is completely untrue. 

Though I agree with your statement, I do think there was a deliberate attempt to allow the iconography and imagery of "old Guns" to help sell this regrouping. Which is perfectly acceptable and sensible from a marketing perspective.

But I can understand why some people would have the reaction their having. How they wish to emote their frustration/disappointment is another matter.

[Gun Shy Assassin]

1 hour ago, RussTCB said:

The issue isn't who is or is not lucky to be in GNR. The issue is that some people keep saying this is being marketed as a GNR Reunion which is completely untrue.

While I agree that the band has never technically marketed this as a "reunion", in all fairness, they haven't publically marketed this tour at all. So, any claims of any kind are speculative, at best. To me, it seems as if the only people who are opposed to this tour being considered a "reunion", are those fans that feel as if a reunion would somehow undermine Axl's credibility, given how opposed he seemed to the prospect for years. If he cared so much about this not being considered a reunion, he should issue a statement to clarify that this isn't a reunion tour. Wouldn't you agree that the general public considers this a reunion - and isn't it understandable why they would?

A part of me feels as if Axl may not want to touch on the subject of a reunion, but he probably doesn't mind the $$$ that, (what seems to be) an obvious reunion of he and Slash will likely bring in.

[Tom-Ass]

2 minutes ago, Gun Shy Assassin said:

 

A part of me feels as if Axl may not want to touch on the subject of a reunion, but he probably doesn't mind the $$$ that, (what seems to be) an obvious reunion of he and Slash will likely bring in.

Yeah, they may have not publicly called this a reunion but that is what it is being marketed as. 

[sanity_lost]

39 minutes ago, Gun Shy Assassin said:

While I agree that the band has never technically marketed this as a "reunion", in all fairness, they haven't publically marketed this tour at all. So, any claims of any kind are speculative, at best. To me, it seems as if the only people who are opposed to this tour being considered a "reunion", are those fans that feel as if a reunion would somehow undermine Axl's credibility, given how opposed he seemed to the prospect for years. If he cared so much about this not being considered a reunion, he should issue a statement to clarify that this isn't a reunion tour. Wouldn't you agree that the general public considers this a reunion - and isn't it understandable why they would?

A part of me feels as if Axl may not want to touch on the subject of a reunion, but he probably doesn't mind the $$$ that, (what seems to be) an obvious reunion of he and Slash will likely bring in.

In my opinion most people are objecting to it being called a reunion because they are tired of the complaints about it being false advertising (Izzy and Steven are not there!*) and those who will only be happy if Izzy and Steven are there (it is not a reunion unless Izzy and Steven are there!*). It doesn't have anything to do with Axl's credibility.

*you can replace Steven with Matt for some and Izzy or Gilby for others 

 

[BOSSY78]

The only actual word I recall them possibly using is regrouping. I'm trying to remember where I read the regrouping at but it only mentions Duff and Slash outside of Axl.  They have never once made it like others will join such as Steven or Izzy only the ones I mentioned have been in any type of media from their camp.

 

So yes I get why the whole it's not a reunion without so and so talk is over done. This is probably another reason why we don't get interviews their own fans can never be satisfied and no matter what still are hollering for a few guys you never once said are coming.

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, Gun Shy Assassin said:

To me, it seems as if the only people who are opposed to this tour being considered a "reunion", are those fans that feel as if a reunion would somehow undermine Axl's credibility [...]

What about the fact that a reunion in music is usually meant like a lineup coming back together, something which isn't the case here? It is only a reunion in the sense that Axl, Duff and Slash has found back to each other, a reunion on the level of individuals, not lineups. But again, that is not what people typically mean when they talk about a band reunion.

[RussTCB]

2 hours ago, Gun Shy Assassin said:

While I agree that the band has never technically marketed this as a "reunion", in all fairness, they haven't publically marketed this tour at all. So, any claims of any kind are speculative, at best. To me, it seems as if the only people who are opposed to this tour being considered a "reunion", are those fans that feel as if a reunion would somehow undermine Axl's credibility, given how opposed he seemed to the prospect for years. If he cared so much about this not being considered a reunion, he should issue a statement to clarify that this isn't a reunion tour. Wouldn't you agree that the general public considers this a reunion - and isn't it understandable why they would?

A part of me feels as if Axl may not want to touch on the subject of a reunion, but he probably doesn't mind the $$$ that, (what seems to be) an obvious reunion of he and Slash will likely bring in.

They havent marketed this tour? 

You mean besides the trailers that ran before Star Wars, the radio and television commercials, the billboards all over in US? 

[Gun Shy Assassin]

29 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What about the fact that a reunion in music is usually meant like a lineup coming back together, something which isn't the case here? It is only a reunion in the sense that Axl, Duff and Slash has found back to each other, a reunion on the level of individuals, not lineups. But again, that is not what people typically mean when they talk about a band reunion.

But the whole reason that Guns haven't been minimized to another Vegas residency is because Axl "reunited" with Slash & Duff. If you don't think Axl realizes this too, I think you are selling the man short. It would mean that he is just shy of being a moron, if he didn't realize why he could potentially pull off stadiums in 2016. The vast majority of the general public believe that "GNR have reunited". That's why there's an interest again instead of them being the butt of jokes like they have been in the states for the past 15 years.

 

Also, there have been other bands that have billed themselves as a "reunion" where all original or classic lineup members were not involved. Are you suggesting that isn't the case? I'm not interested in "typically", I'm interested in the reality.

[HeartbreakerWoman]

-Sigh- guys we spent 20 years wanting Slash back in the band. We got Duff, too. And we've got a pretty cool rhythm guitarist. 4 of the 6 guys on the Illusion stage are there. Isn't that enough?

[Gun Shy Assassin]

11 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

They havent marketed this tour?

You mean besides the trailers that ran before Star Wars, the radio and television commercials, the billboards all over in US?

Exactly .. besides those few things, the band, themselves, have done nothing to market this tour. Nor have they denied in any way that this is a reunion. In the words of Izzy Stradlin, "there is so much speculation but so little info".

 

I ask again, could you see why the general public would believe that this is a "reunion" tour? Why isn't Axl saying anything to squash those rumors, if he cared so much about this "not" being billed a reunion? I can guess why ... $$$$$$$.

[The Glow Inc.]

 

2 minutes ago, Gun Shy Assassin said:

Exactly .. besides those few things, the band, themselves, have done nothing to market this tour. Nor have they denied in any way that this is a reunion. In the words of Izzy Stradlin, "there is so much speculation but so little info".

 

I ask again, could you see why the general public would believe that this is a "reunion" tour? Why isn't Axl saying anything to squash those rumors, if he cared so much about this "not" being billed a reunion? I can guess why ... $$$$$$$.

If someone doesn't know by now that this isn't a "reunion" tour and that Izzy and Steven aren't there, I doubt that person really is a Izzy or Steven fan to begin with...

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, Gun Shy Assassin said:

But the whole reason that Guns haven't been minimized to another Vegas residency is because Axl "reunited" with Slash & Duff. If you don't think Axl realizes this too, I think you are selling the man short. It would mean that he is just shy of being a moron, if he didn't realize why he could potentially pull off stadiums in 2016. The vast majority of the general public believe that "GNR have reunited". That's why there's an interest again instead of them being the butt of jokes like they have been in the states for the past 15 years.

Also, there have been other bands that have billed themselves as a "reunion" where all original or classic lineup members were not involved. Are you suggesting that isn't the case? I'm not interested in "typically", I'm interested in the reality.

Have I denied that Axl and Guns N' Roses benefits from the media referring to it as a reunion? Of course he and the band does. But that doesn't mean the band has branded it as a reunion, in fact, the somewhat synthetic phrasing of it being a regrouping suggests to me they go out of their way to NOT call it a reunion.

How would it matter what other bands have done in an effort to sell tickets?

There are many good reasons to not call this a reunion. And there are mnay bad reasons. I don't refer to it as a reunion because I am a schtickler for precision. This simply isn't a band reunion and it makes little sense to me to refer to it as a reunion between individuals. To me it is a hybrid lineup. And, well, that is exactly what it is. If people prefer to call it anything else, then I feel that is more motivated by agendas and biases than actually wanting to be precise.

[RussTCB]

1 minute ago, Gun Shy Assassin said:

Exactly .. besides those few things, the band, themselves, have done nothing to market this tour. Nor have they denied in any way that this is a reunion. In the words of Izzy Stradlin, "there is so much speculation but so little info".

 

I ask again, could you see why the general public would believe that this is a "reunion" tour? Why isn't Axl saying anything to squash those rumors, if he cared so much about this "not" being billed a reunion? I can guess why ... $$$$$$$.

So the tour IS being marketed? I'm confused now because you said otherwise but then agreed with me lol. 

My thing is this: GNRs marketing (all the things I listed)  has made it clear who's in the band. Who should they have to come out and clarify anything? 

Was the whole internet speculating about who was going to be there? Yes. GNR has already ran a ton of promotion based on only Axl, Slash and Duff, so why would they need to refute every single article on the internet speculating otherwise? 

Hell... Izzy himself came out and said he wasn't going to be in Vegas and we still had posters saying they were disappointed afterwards because they thought he'd be there. 

My overall point is that the marketing has made absolutely no attempt to make it seem like the original 5 are going to be there. Just because the internet wants to insinuate otherwise isn't on GNR.  

[Gun Shy Assassin]

Just now, The Glow Inc. said:

 

If someone doesn't know by now that this isn't a "reunion" tour and that Izzy and Steven aren't there, I doubt that person really is a Izzy or Steven fan to begin with...

I completely disagree. The only people who "know" anything are people like us who obsessively follow the band. If you're not logging in to a fan forum or have already seen the band in Vegas or Coachella, the closest one may have come to knowing who's taking part and who's not is someone who may have seen the RS article where Izzy denied involvement. There's probably a lot of people who really like (or liked) GNR that don't know much of anything other than them hearing that they have reunited and are back out on tour.

 

In fact, I can state this with confidence because I've had friends ask me, "it's the whole band, right?"

[SoulMonster]

7 minutes ago, Gun Shy Assassin said:

Nor have they denied in any way that this is a reunion.

By that brilliant logic the band is also now an acapella group, I mean since they haven't denied that, either.

Look, the band has had numerous opportunities to call it a reunion, but they never have, instead they have called it other things. If they thought of it as a reunion they would use that powerful word because it sells tickets. The fact that they don't call it a reunion suggests to me they are aware it isn't. They have probably looked at the band and seen is it a mixture of various lineups with members missing form each previous lineups, and hence not a reunion.

This is similar to people refusing to refer to the band in 2001-2014 as "Guns N' Roses", now people refuse to accept this isn't a reunion

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, Gun Shy Assassin said:

I completely disagree. The only people who "know" anything are people like us who obsessively follow the band. If you're not logging in to a fan forum or have already seen the band in Vegas or Coachella, the closest one may have come to knowing who's taking part and who's not is someone who may have seen the RS article where Izzy denied involvement. There's probably a lot of people who really like (or liked) GNR that don't know much of anything other than them hearing that they have reunited and are back out on tour.

Is your point that the band should issue some statement declaring it is not a reunion? Is that it? GN'R, who rarely comments on false rumours and erroneous media reporting, should now, despite the fact that they have publicly stated who is in the band and are 6 shows into the tour, go public to set the record straight?

[HeartbreakerWoman]

It's a reboot. Not a reunion.

[Gun Shy Assassin]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

By that brilliant logic the band is also now an acapella group, I mean since they haven't denied that, either.

Look, the band has had numerous opportunities to call it a reunion, but they never have, instead they have called it other things. If they thought of it as a reunion they would use that powerful word because it sells tickets. The fact that they don't call it a reunion suggests to me they are aware it isn't. They have probably looked at the band and seen is it a mixture of various lineups with members missing form each previous lineups, and hence not a reunion.

This is similar to people refusing to refer to the band in 2001-2014 as "Guns N' Roses", now people refuse to accept this isn't a reunion

The band hasn't said anything at all, much less publicly label this tour anything. By your logic, since they haven't publically confirmed this to be a reunion, that must mean that the US dates that are listed are also not confirmed since none of the members actually gave interviews saying, "yep, we're playing Pittsburgh, Detroit, Chicago, LA, etc. etc. etc.".

 

Also, you say "they" have called it other things .. who are they, exactly?

 

Again, below is the definition of the word "reunion". Sound applicable to any band that you are a fan of?

 

re·un·ion

 

noun

noun: reunion; plural noun: reunions; noun: re-union; plural noun: re-unions

1. an instance of two or more people coming together again after a period of separation.

[Gun Shy Assassin]

13 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

 

My thing is this: GNRs marketing (all the things I listed)  has made it clear who's in the band. Who should they have to come out and clarify anything?

 

You say that GNR's marketing has consisted of Star War trailers and billboard signs. I have seen both, and neither appear to commit to any certain members being there or not being there. In fact, one could argue that the "classic logo" could be misleading, if this isn't a "reunion" as some of you claim. If there was some specific marketing (by the band) that made it crystal clear who would be taking part, I must have missed it. You mentioned commercials .. I haven't seen any. Did these commercials specify that instead of Izzy & Steve, we'd be getting the other 2 instead?

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Gun Shy Assassin said:

The band hasn't said anything at all, much less publicly label this tour anything. By your logic, since they haven't publically confirmed this to be a reunion, that must mean that the US dates that are listed are also not confirmed since none of the members actually gave interviews saying, "yep, we're playing Pittsburgh, Detroit, Chicago, LA, etc. etc. etc.".

 

Also, you say "they" have called it other things .. who are they, exactly?

 

Again, below is the definition of the word "reunion". Sound applicable to any band that you are a fan of?

 

re·un·ion

 

noun

noun: reunion; plural noun: reunions; noun: re-union; plural noun: re-unions

1. an instance of two or more people coming together again after a period of separation.

The band hasn't said anything at all? Huh? They released a press statement some weeks ago where the word "reunion" was absent, instead they referred to it as a "regrouping". And they have confirmed the dates for the summer tour. In press statements and on their web page. Is your point that it isn't the band members who have written and published those press releases but rather their publicists or managements and thus the band cannot be held responsible for the contents of said statements?

When we talk about a reunion in music we talk about a band/lineup coming together again. This is not the case here. No previous lineup has been reformed. Hence referring to it as a reunion is either imprecise or deliberately misleading. As I have said before, this is absolutely a reunion between individuals (Slash, Duff and Axl), but, again, in music jargon a reunion is usually meant to be about a whole band or lineup.

[Jordan Rose]

On 24/04/2016 at 4:24 PM, madison said:

I agree - it was a cringeworthy comment.

Don't get me wrong - I like Richard.

 

But, this tour is being hyped and promoted as a reunion of the original lineup "for the first time in 23 years" 

No, it's not. FYI Slash and Duff were not in the original lineup. Have a look at Wikipedia and learn the difference between 'original' and 'classic.' 

On 24/04/2016 at 4:24 PM, madison said:

 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Gun Shy Assassin said:

You say that GNR's marketing has consisted of Star War trailers and billboard signs. I have seen both, and neither appear to commit to any certain members being there or not being there. In fact, one could argue that the "classic logo" could be misleading, if this isn't a "reunion" as some of you claim. If there was some specific marketing (by the band) that made it crystal clear who would be taking part, I must have missed it. You mentioned commercials .. I haven't seen any. Did these commercials specify that instead of Izzy & Steve, we'd be getting the other 2 instead?

Marketing is much more than commercials and signs. It is actually every puclic statements released by the band, including photo captions and live footage. Yes, in the beginning the band did not disclose the full reunion, instead focusing on Slash and Duff returning to the band. Sure, this could mean that Steven and Izzy would be there, too (although why didn't they then actually refer to it as a reunion? Surely that would sell even more tickets). But then, probably as it became clear to the band itself that Izzy wouldn't be part of it, they had little qualms about being open about it. Frank and Richard admitted as much on FB. Chris came very close to admitting being out. And now that the tour is on it should be obvious to anyone with eyes in their heads that it isn't a reunion. No point for the band to go out with a statement to point out the obvious. And if this isn't enough, the band also signed the condolances to the Mexican fan who dies in a road accident with all the names of the band.

Again, what is your problem? That the band hasn't done enough to point out that this isn't a reunion?

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Jordan Rose said:

No, it's not. FYI Slash and Duff were not in the original lineup. Have a look at Wikipedia and learn the difference between 'original' and 'classic.' 

What I used to say was that if you can replace "original" with "the very first" then you are using the word correctly

But that is another trick of the revisionists. Not only did GN'R seize to be when the AFD and UYI lineups fell apart, it also didn't exist before they came to be! AFD and UYI is alpha and omega. And now, because people really, really, really, really want a reunion and can't accept they have waited in vain for it, this lineup, consisting of Axl, Richard, Duff, Frank, Slash, Dizzy and, haha, Melissa, is, through ways that can only be deemed mysterious, an actual reunion resulting in the rise of Guns N' Roses yet again. GN'R is dead, long live GN'R!