Any regret about the HOF induction?

[trev]

Just now, The Archer said:

Ha! I was actually thinking that Axl would probably want to punch Billy Joel in the face when he started with the 'You're fuckin' crazy'.

Axl would!  Doubt Dizzy would though

[sonofnazareth]

6 hours ago, Billsfan said:

Dizzy was on the illusion records. The HOF is a really screwy thing because for GNR they chose to induct the appetite and illusions eras of the band. Gilby was only on spaghetti which was a cover record. At that point a can of worms could have been opened. So by that logic then bucket, huge, finck, bumble, Fortus, Stinson, brain, and pitman should have been inducted as well. But then again the chili peppers inducted like 30 people and no one cares beyond kiedis flea Chad smith Slovak and frusciante. Trujillo went in with Metallica. It's a no win debate.

It just would have been out of hand and that establishment is already a mess. Realistically, the 7 people they put in were the real GNR. And dizzy is the man 

I respect your opinion, but I feel that Gilby should have been inducted as he contributed within a live context when GNR was on top of the world. 

Edited June 2, 2016 by sonofnazareth

[DieselDaisy]

I'm not keen on Green Day however I actually thought Armstrong did an excellent introduction speech. I'm not a fan of the Hall as an institute however it is funny seeing everyone shitting on this event now that they are masturbating over Hybrid N' Roses - people loved GN'R's HoF performance at the time. NB there are three original members at the HOF also, (and in Sorum a sort of honourary original being that he played on the Illusions.)

Typical GN'R fan politics!!

Edited June 3, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

GN'R did not perform at HOF. Axl owned the brand. It was a tribute concert with some past members.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

GN'R did not perform at HOF. Axl owned the brand. It was a tribute concert with some past members.

In your opinion.

As far as I'm concerned that was more GN'R than Nugnr and about on par with Hybrid-GN'R. GN'R has not truly existed since 1993ish.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

In your opinion.

Axl owning the band name is not up to opinion.

If we were to substitute hard facts with opinions and feelings then anything can be anything. That is not a mental exercise I find sensical, but I see many GN'R fans comfortably do it on a regular basis.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Axl owning the band name is not up to opinion.

If we were to substitute hard facts with opinions and feelings then anything can be anything. That is not a mental exercise I find sensical, but I see many GN'R fans comfortably do it on a regular basis.

Hard facts? Here is a hard fact for you: Guns N' Roses were dissolved on 30th December 1995.

 

[wasted]

But the legal entity wasn't GNR. 

Not that it matters, but it's still bizarre that at HOF they can't work it out. Then a few years later Slash and Duff are playing with Frank and Fortus in GNR. 

This is GNR, but then we will join what we said wasn't GNR a few years later just to fuck with you!

 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Hard facts? Here is a hard fact for you: Guns N' Roses were dissolved on 30th December 1995.

Irrelevant for whether Axl owned the band name when the band was inducted, isn't it?

Usually, reunionists talk about the dissolution and reinstitution of GN'R when they want to argue that nuGN'R is not the same band as old GN'R, so I have to commend your attempt at using this argument to prove something new, although I think you miss the mark somewhat if you think it will somehow demonstrate that the guys playing at the HOF were somehow GN'R.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, wasted said:

But the legal entity wasn't GNR.

 

Huh? Well it wasn't The Beatles or Abba!

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Irrelevant for whether Axl owned the band name when the band was inducted, isn't it?

Usually, reunionists talk about the dissolution and reinstitution of GN'R when they want to argue that nuGN'R is not the same band as old GN'R, so I have to commend your attempt at using this argument to prove something new, although I think you miss the mark somewhat if you think it will somehow demonstrate that the guys playing at the HOF were somehow GN'R.

Allow me to reiterate: they were more Guns than Nuguns but Guns have not been properly constituted since (de facto) 1993ish (de jure 1995).

HoF: Adler, Slash, Duff, Matt, Gilby = five members which played during the old era.

Nugnr: Axl, Dizzy = Two

Hybrid: Axl, Slash, Duff = three

Even if you are one of those who hate Sorum and Gilby, the Hall performance was still merely on par with this hybrid, both possessing three members of the Appetite band.

[SoulMonster]

22 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Allow me to reiterate: they were more Guns than Nuguns but Guns have not been properly constituted since (de facto) 1993ish (de jure 1995).

A band either is or isn't Guns N' Roses. And since Axl owns the name it is when and only when he says so. If you still don't get this, go back to my first post on the subject and start over again. Repeat as necesarry.

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

A band either is or isn't Guns N' Roses. And since Axl owns the name it is when and only when he says so. If you still don't get this, go back to my first post on the subject and start over again. Repeat as necesarry.

Yet a band was dissolved 30th December 1995. What was the name of that band, Soul? I'll help you: ''G...U...'.

 

[wasted]

The legal entity of the HOF line up wasn't GNR. 

When it's about bashing nu Guns all the legal jargon is taken literally. But if it has some reunionist angle then just ignore it. 

Like a mouse inside a maze wasted was lost for days with tsingdao in his face wasted never wanna leave this place

I'm now in that special place only NBA players or brain damaged boxers get to where they refer to themselves in the 3rd person. 

Wasted don't listen to haters, wasted makes many posts. 

[SoulMonster]

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Yet a band was dissolved 30th December 1995. What was the name of that band, Soul? I'll help you: ''G...U...'.

 

48 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Irrelevant for whether Axl owned the band name when the band was inducted, isn't it?

Usually, reunionists talk about the dissolution and reinstitution of GN'R when they want to argue that nuGN'R is not the same band as old GN'R, so I have to commend your attempt at using this argument to prove something new, although I think you miss the mark somewhat if you think it will somehow demonstrate that the guys playing at the HOF were somehow GN'R.

 

[DieselDaisy]

9 minutes ago, wasted said:

The legal entity of the HOF line up wasn't GNR. 

When it's about bashing nu Guns all the legal jargon is taken literally. But if it has some reunionist angle then just ignore it. 

Like a mouse inside a maze wasted was lost for days with tsingdao in his face wasted never wanna leave this place

I'm now in that special place only NBA players or brain damaged boxers get to where they refer to themselves in the 3rd person. 

Wasted don't listen to haters, wasted makes many posts. 

Objectively no as Guns N' Roses ended on 30th December 1995. Subjectively, it could be - or near enough.

Just as Axl had the legal freedom to launch a Machiavellian power grab and launch a new fake band with the old moniker, so it is a fans prerogative to regard the result of that power grab bona fide or otherwise.

If you go to a dodgy market and buy a fake Rolex, would you regard that as genuine or simply put down the shutters and say, ''it says 'Rolex' so it is Rolex''?

[Lies They Tell]

On 1.6.2016 at 10:55 PM, 3rd Wheel said:

So, a two-fold question:
1.) Do you think Axl regrets not showing up for the HOF induction in 2012? (If Dexter wants to chime in, more power to him)
2.) Do you wish the HOF induction would've been delayed UNTIL a reunion happened in order to get the proper moment for rock and GNR history?
 

Personally I don't really care about the whole Hall Of Fame thing. And I don't think Axl regrets it. GNR has always been a band that does all the Rock N' Roll cliches and rejecting the HOF induction is a part of that tradition.

[Mr. Dude]

3 hours ago, wasted said:

But the legal entity wasn't GNR. 

Not that it matters, but it's still bizarre that at HOF they can't work it out. Then a few years later Slash and Duff are playing with Frank and Fortus in GNR. 

This is GNR, but then we will join what we said wasn't GNR a few years later just to fuck with you!

 

That's why God put those dinosaur bones here.

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Objectively no as Guns N' Roses ended on 30th December 1995. Subjectively, it could be - or near enough.

Just as Axl had the legal freedom to launch a Machiavellian power grab and launch a new fake band with the old moniker, so it is a fans prerogative to regard the result of that power grab bona fide or otherwise.

If you go to a dodgy market and buy a fake Rolex, would you regard that as genuine or simply put down the shutters and say, ''it says 'Rolex' so it is Rolex''?

Even all Real Rolexes aren't the same.

[Nikki_Sixx]

23 hours ago, Mr. Dude said:

That's ludicrous. Paul Tobias is more legitimate than Gilby.

Paul Tobias has exactly zero legitamacy as a member of GNR.

[Mr. Dude]

15 hours ago, The Archer said:

Ha! I was actually thinking that Axl would probably want to punch Billy Joel in the face when he started with the 'You're fuckin' crazy'.

I think punching out Billy Joel at this juncture in his career would be a bad PR move for Axl.

[wasted]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Objectively no as Guns N' Roses ended on 30th December 1995. Subjectively, it could be - or near enough.

Just as Axl had the legal freedom to launch a Machiavellian power grab and launch a new fake band with the old moniker, so it is a fans prerogative to regard the result of that power grab bona fide or otherwise.

If you go to a dodgy market and buy a fake Rolex, would you regard that as genuine or simply put down the shutters and say, ''it says 'Rolex' so it is Rolex''?

What if the fake wasn't a fake it just took a detour out the back of the factory and comes with a dodgy booklet written in Russian? But enough about my Beatz headphones I bought in Thailand. 

It feels like that to me. CD is an album made in the same factory with different workers and says GNR on the label but it didn't come through the same legal channels as the other albums. 

Objectively I see GNR as a band with the GNR name.

What is going on with Bobby Blotzer touring as Ratt? He's a contender for Axl's throne with that one. 

 

 

 

 

[DieselDaisy]

This is Nugnr's Rolex,

 

[wasted]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

This is Nugnr's Rolex,

 

It's always set to Axl Time. 

[SoulMonster]

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

If you go to a dodgy market and buy a fake Rolex, would you regard that as genuine or simply put down the shutters and say, ''it says 'Rolex' so it is Rolex''?

You would regard it as a fake Rolex, because that is exactly what it would be: A product that isn't legally allowed to be named Rolex yet still claims to be. nuGuns were allowed to be called Guns N' Roses because Axl owned that name. The band that played at HOF did not. Therefore that band was not Guns N' Roses. And if they did claim to be GN'R it would be equivalent to that cheap watch ripoff trying to masquerade as a Rolex.

This is all just a repetition of whether a band deserves to be named something because you happen to think it should be, or because it actually owns the rights to that name. We have been through this a myriad of times. The essence of my argument is that only the owner has the right to name something, no one else, and subjective feelings of quality does not give third parties the right to denounce or establish a name. Again, that right lies entirely with the owner. If we allowed whoever the right to name whatever it would be chaos and instead of discussing the qualities of something, which can be interesting, it just devolves to inane discussions about whether something deserves to be named something, which is a waste of time. You don't like GN'R since 1993? Fine. You don't think it is Guns N' Roses? Err, ok.

[DieselDaisy]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You would regard it as a fake Rolex, because that is exactly what it would be: A product that isn't legally allowed to be named Rolex yet still claims to be. nuGuns were allowed to be called Guns N' Roses because Axl owned that name. The band that played at HOF did not. Therefore that band was not Guns N' Roses. And if they did claim to be GN'R it would be equivalent to that cheap watch ripoff trying to masquerade as a Rolex.

This is all just a repetition of whether a band deserves to be named something because you happen to think it should be, or because it actually owns the rights to that name. We have been through this a myriad of times. The essence of my argument is that only the owner has the right to name something, no one else, and subjective feelings of quality does not give third parties the right to denounce or establish a name. Again, that right lies entirely with the owner. If we allowed whoever the right to name whatever it would be chaos and instead of discussing the qualities of something, which can be interesting, it just devolves to inane discussions about whether something deserves to be named something, which is a waste of time. You don't like GN'R since 1993? Fine. You don't think it is Guns N' Roses? Err, ok.

You are keen to stress the fact of ownership of the name, yet less keen to stress the fact that, for Axl to own that name he had to dissolve a certain band! I wonder why?

What band was it, Soul, that Axl broke up on 30th December 1995? Why would Axl feel the need to form a new band, Soul, if there is an unbroken existence between old GN'R and New?

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are keen to stress the fact of ownership of the name, yet less keen to stress the fact that, for Axl to own that name he had to dissolve a certain band! I wonder why?

What band was it, Soul, that Axl broke up on 30th December 1995? Why would Axl feel the need to form a new band, Soul, if there is an unbroken existence between old GN'R and New?

Because how he ended up owning Guns N' Roses is irrelevant to whether the HOF band was GN'R or not.

No one has claimed there is an unbroken existence between old GN'R and new GN'R and that, too, is irrelevant to whether the HOF band was Guns N' Roses. It wasn't, because Axl owned that name.

You simply can't successfully argue for why the HOF band was Guns N' Roses other than saying that in your opinion it should have been Guns N' Roses, or at least as much as nuGuns is. That's fine. We are free to wish whatever we want. Fact is that in this specific case reality doesn't conform with your wishes. You can dislike it as much as you want, you can be physically ill thinking that Dj Ashba was at times the lead guitarist in Guns N' Roses, you can be disgusted that Chinese Democracy was a GN'R record, but it still won't change reality. I tell my kids this all the time, too, when they find the world awfully unfair and not to their liking and try to change this by simply wanting it to be different or by refusing to accept it as it is.