Any regret about the HOF induction?

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

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.

Why are you stressing the HoF point when I've already stated my opinion that the HoF band was more Guns N' Roses (than Nugnr) - not the Guns N' Roses - on at least two-three occasions now?

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Why are you stressing the HoF point when I've already stated my opinion that the HoF band was more Guns N' Roses (than Nugnr) - not the Guns N' Roses - on at least two-three occasions now?

Because a band's existence isn't a continuum but a discrete entity. It either is Guns N' Roses or it isn't. A half-drowned cat is still a cat. And a dog that purrs is still a dog. Guns N' Roses is Guns N' Roses and any other band is 100 % non-Guns N' Roses.

You might think that the HOF band looked like Guns N' Roses, played like Guns N' Roses, carried the Guns N' Roses legacy, felt like Guns N' Roses, sounded like Guns N' Roses, but it wasn't Guns N' Roses AND it can never be "more Guns N' Roses" than any other band, especially not the very band that IS Guns N' Roses, even if your subjective feelings on the matter is that it should be. The world doesn't work that way.

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Because a band's existence isn't a continuum but a discrete entity. It either is Guns N' Roses or it isn't. A half-drowned cat is still a cat. And a dog that purrs is still a dog. Guns N' Roses is Guns N' Roses and any other band is 100 % non-Guns N' Roses.

You might think that the HOF band looked like Guns N' Roses, played like Guns N' Roses, carried the Guns N' Roses legacy, felt like Guns N' Roses, sounded like Guns N' Roses, but it wasn't Guns N' Roses AND it can never be "more Guns N' Roses" than any other band, especially not the very band that IS Guns N' Roses, even if your subjective feelings on the matter is that it should be. The world doesn't work that way.

Can you think out of the bubble of Germanic science for a change? Can you not comprehend the fact that fan perception of a band being that band is not based on name ownership, but inherently bound up with personae? Have you ever studied semiotics? Well, speaking semiotically, the reason people look at old footage of The Beatles and it registers in their brain, ''that is The Beatles'', is not because of legal ownership or market branding but the inert fact that John, Paul, George and Ringo are on stage playing together (and that the music is the result of that).

[SoulMonster]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Can you think out of the bubble of Germanic science for a change? Can you not comprehend the fact that fan perception of a band being that band is not based on name ownership, but inherently bound up with personae? Have you ever studied semiotics? Well, speaking semiotically, the reason people look at old footage of The Beatles and it registers in their brain, ''that is The Beatles'', is not because of legal ownership or market branding but the inert fact that John, Paul, George and Ringo are on stage playing together (and that the music is the result of that).

Do Germans have their own science?

A fan's appreciation of a band, and that fan's recognition of the band, may be intrinsically linked to specific band members (like in the case with Beatles who had a stable lineup throughout their immense success), a musical genre, a particular frontman, or music writer, etc. And changes to these things may result in that fan not thinking the band deserves its name anymore. All fine. I happened to feel the same way in 1991 when bloated GN'R hit the scene. It just wasn't the same to me. I didn't like it. I felt it shouldn't be Guns N' Roses. But going from not feeling something should be as it is to refusing to accept that it is, are two very different things. You, and anyone, may think that the HOF band should have been Guns N' Roses, you might indeed feel it sounded more like Guns N' Roses than anything else, and looked more like it, too, but saying that it was Guns N' Roses, or that it was "more Guns N' Roses" than the actual Guns N' Roses, is nonsense and reminiscent of how kids argue when things aren't to their liking.

And this has nothing to do with science (although I am not familiar with the German variety you speak of), it has to do with either being precise in how we express ourselves or simply learning to accept that the world is not always how we want it to be.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Do Germans have their own science?

A fan's appreciation of a band, and that fan's recognition of the band, may be intrinsically linked to specific band members (like in the case with Beatles who had a stable lineup throughout their immense success), a musical genre, a particular frontman, or music writer, etc. And changes to these things may result in that fan not thinking the band deserves its name anymore. All fine. I happened to feel the same way in 1991 when bloated GN'R hit the scene. It just wasn't the same to me. I didn't like it. I felt it shouldn't be Guns N' Roses. But going from not feeling something should be as it is to refusing to accept that it is, are two very different things. You, and anyone, may think that the HOF band should have been Guns N' Roses, you might indeed feel it sounded more like Guns N' Roses than anything else, and looked more like it, too, but saying that it was Guns N' Roses, or that it was "more Guns N' Roses" than the actual Guns N' Roses, is nonsense and reminiscent of how kids argue when things aren't to their liking.

And this has nothing to do with science (although I am not familiar with the German variety you speak of), it has to do with either being precise in how we express ourselves or simply learning to accept that the world is not always how we want it to be.

You are putting words into my mouth here, especially with what I've highlighted. The HoF had one huge deficiency: the singer was Scott Weiland, who is as dull as dishwater. That I think it was 'more Guns N' Roses' (than Nugnr) however is a legitimate argument and I'm certainly standing by it. Quantifiably, leaving aside the Dizzies, Gilbys and Matts debate, the HoF band had three original members to Nugnr's paltry one!! It really is that simple. You are inherently going to see and hear 60% of the Appetite band, to Nugnr's 20%. Even if you see Adler as a redundancy, you are still left with 40 to 20.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are putting words into my mouth here, especially with what I've highlighted. The HoF had one huge deficiency: the singer was Scott Weiland, who is as dull as dishwater. That I think it was 'more Guns N' Roses' (than Nugnr) however is a legitimate argument and I'm certainly standing by it. Quantifiably, leaving aside the Dizzies, Gilbys and Matts debate, the HoF band had three original members to Nugnr's paltry one!! It really is that simple. You are inherently going to see and hear 60% of the Appetite band, to Nugnr's 20%. Even if you see Adler as a redundancy, you are still left with 40 to 20.

Myles Kennedy, but yeah, he is as boring as they get.

You felt it was more like Guns N' Roses, it wasn't more like Guns N' Roses. You are basically arguing in circles now.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Myles Kennedy, but yeah, he is as boring as they get.

You felt it was more like Guns N' Roses, it wasn't more like Guns N' Roses. You are basically arguing in circles now.

60-20 says that band was more Guns N' Roses and that I'm correct.

[Rovim]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

60-20 says that band was more Guns N' Roses and that I'm correct.

What are you talking about Daisy? Guns is more Guns with Myles Kennedy than with Axl, cause percentage wise. Ridiculous.

Guns can never be Guns without Axl. I don't even think anyone in the band will disagree with this statement. Not very objective when it comes to Axl which is nothing new but you might want to work on that.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Rovim said:

What are you talking about Daisy? Guns is more Guns with Myles Kennedy than with Axl, cause percentage wise. Ridiculous.

Guns can never be Guns without Axl. I don't even think anyone in the band will disagree with this statement. Not very objective when it comes to Axl which is nothing new but you might want to work on that.

I agree, but I never said it was 'Guns': I said it was ''more Guns'' (than Nugnr). By the same logic I would also say ''Guns can never be Guns without'' Slash and Duff, two present in the HoF band, absent in Nugnr

[Rovim]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

I agree, but I never said it was 'Guns': I said it was ''more Guns'' (than Nugnr). By the same logic I would also say ''Guns can never be Guns without'' Slash and Duff, two present in the HoF band, absent in Nugnr

Not really you know... I wouldn't say every member was just as important. Like if you wanted it to be 100% Guns, you do need the original 5.

But is Steven as important as Izzy for example? honestly. I think it's still Guns now and the HOF line up was clearly not Guns. Not even a little.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Rovim said:

Not really you know... I wouldn't say every member was just as important. Like if you wanted it to be 100% Guns, you do need the original 5.

But is Steven as important as Izzy for example? honestly. I think it's still Guns now and the HOF line up was clearly not Guns. Not even a little.

Axl, Slash, Izzy and Duff are equal importance - Adler a bit more less.

The HoF had 40% of members of paramount importance and Adler, of slightly less. Nugnr had 20% members of paramount importance. That is 60-20 in favour of the HoF band. Even if you dock Adler, it is still 40-20.

[Rovim]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Axl, Slash, Izzy and Duff are equal importance - Adler a bit more less.

The HoF had 40% of members of paramount importance and Adler, of slightly less. Nugnr had 20% members of paramount importance. That is 60-20 in favour of the HoF band. Even if you dock Adler, it is still 40-20.

I don't actually think Duff is as important as Izzy or Axl and Slash. Not trying to take anything away from him, he's very important it's just that to me the others are more important.

Which is why I also think new Guns was more Guns than Slash and The Conspirators even when they played many Guns tunes live and it's 1 classic member in each band.

Face it, there are Axl, Izzy, and Slash

Then Duff

Then Steven

From the most important to the least for the viability of the band.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Rovim said:

I don't actually think Duff is as important as Izzy or Axl and Slash. Not trying to take anything away from him, he's very important it's just that to me the others are more important.

Which is why I also think new Guns was more Guns than Slash and The Conspirators even when they played many Guns tunes live and it's 1 classic member in each band.

Face it, there are Axl, Izzy, and Slash

Then Duff

Then Steven

From the most important to the least for the viability of the band.

Even if you dock Duff a percentage of importance you are still dealing with three members versus one!!

[Rovim]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Even if you dock Duff a percentage of importance you are still dealing with three members versus one!!

And yet it's still not Guns when a specific member is not a part of it. Let's say Axl for example.

Look... the same rules don't apply for every band. Every band member is different as a person so each one brings unique elements and the value of it can't be properly represented when you call it "1" 1 member vs. 3 or whatever.

It doesn't work. There were Steven, Duff, and Slash there. That can never be Guns.

Axl and a whole bunch of other players is not really Guns. But it's sure as fuck much closer to being Guns compared to any other classic member by themselves which just proves that you really can't measure it that way.

 

[cheesecake]

Frontmen are called frontmen for a reason.

[DieselDaisy]

15 minutes ago, Rovim said:

And yet it's still not Guns when a specific member is not a part of it. Let's say Axl for example.

Look... the same rules don't apply for every band. Every band member is different as a person so each one brings unique elements and the value of it can't be properly represented when you call it "1" 1 member vs. 3 or whatever.

It doesn't work. There were Steven, Duff, and Slash there. That can never be Guns.

Axl and a whole bunch of other players is not really Guns. But it's sure as fuck much closer to being Guns compared to any other classic member by themselves which just proves that you really can't measure it that way.

 

I don't agree.

[Rovim]

21 minutes ago, cheesecake said:

Frontmen are called frontmen for a reason.

But some bands can replace a very prominent frontman and still be considered the real band. Who do we have? AC/DC, Iron Maiden, Van Halen, and many more.

It depends on the band. (and the replacements and other factors) Zeppelin lost Bonham and couldn't continue. They knew it was over. When Keith Moon died, The Who were not the same band, not even sure they were still The Who.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Rovim

[DieselDaisy]

To me Slash, Izzy and Duff are every bit as important to Guns as Axl.

[Sprite]

4 minutes ago, Rovim said:

I don't actually think Duff is as important as Izzy or Axl and Slash. Not trying to take anything away from him, he's very important it's just that to me the others are more important.

Which is why I also think new Guns was more Guns than Slash and The Conspirators even when they played many Guns tunes live and it's 1 classic member in each band.

Face it, there are Axl, Izzy, and Slash

Then Duff

Then Steven

From the most important to the least for the viability of the band.

Interesting. I get the logic, I'm just timid to cop to it. I don't know if the inner workings of a band really play out like how we can analyze it. Like Steven was not as important, I can get it. Even Duff. But what is Appetite left with without that groove they perfected? Does the rest of the album organically come together like it did without them? Or Duff's obvious punk influence which was just as vital to Appetite as Izzy's Stones-ness. So to even rate the importance of the 5 seems a little unassuming when you think of the sum total of what they created.

Because I think what made it so great is it all came together perfectly. They all complimented each other and made each other what they were in a way. The sum was greater than the parts type thing, as great as the parts were. I think it's this aspect of the band that people like Tomass and Daisy miss and why all of their nugnr posts are just complaints. The band works a lot different today for sure. Different life stage. Different era. Etc. And I have doubts that it is realistic to think that they will ever return to that Appetite magic, so why hold on to the anger or longing for it? People love to complain or think about how it should or could be. Next to death and taxes it's all we've got.

But at the same time, I get the ranking system. Because to me there is no Guns N Roses without Axl, love him or hate him. He turned this into his band initially which I think was an intelligent move on his end considering the substance abuse and mega success that swirled around them in the early days. He clearly had more of a business sense than the other 4 at the time. He's also the part people know the most. Well him and Slash. So I get ranking them on that level, but I think that is all just fun mind games to play. What happened is what happened and we are left with what's left. We can debate who did more or what version of a grouping had higher percentages, but at the end of the day all that matters is the music that was created.

 

 

 

[Rovim]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

To me Slash, Izzy and Duff are every bit as important to Guns as Axl.

Duff is as important as Axl? or Slash? Or Izzy? lol. You don't even believe that last one is even true.

[moreblack]

I think if anything it showed Axl the value that his current(at the time) lineup could never match in the public's eye.
You watch the acceptance speeches, and the crowd was already cheering when each member went up to the mic, because that era still means something to the people who grew up on that music. Even Duff on his speech said it didn't matter who was there that night, because it was more about the music.

And for years that might not have meant much to him, but when everyone tells him to get the old guys back loud enough for long enough, he had to eventually consider it. 

Edited June 3, 2016 by moreblack

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Rovim said:

Duff is as important as Axl? or Slash? Or Izzy? lol. You don't even believe that last one is even true.

Duff's driving punk-pop basslines are one of the key ingredients of Guns, Sweet Child O' Mine, It's so Easy.

[Rovim]

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Duff's driving punk-pop basslines are one of the key ingredients of Guns, Sweet Child O' Mine, It's so Easy.

But his contributions are less important cause Axl, Slash, and Izzy are better songwriters or composers and they still bring you the key ingredient in their playing and/or singing.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Rovim

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Rovim said:

But his contributions are less important cause Axl, Slash, and Duff are better songwriters or composers and they still bring you the key ingredient in their playing and/or singing.

It's so Easy, Rocket Queen, Paradise City, Civil War?

[axlslash]

This "reunion" is just a new progression in the long revolving door of musicians. That's what Axl protested by not showing up - the failure of the Hall to acknowledge the later musicians. I think he probably still feels that way, so no regrets for him.

I have no regrets about how things have worked out. The Hall may have started some conversations that led to the current regrouping. Doing it later may have prevented this tour from ever happening. We have a nice chunk of what we've always wanted right now - why would I regret anything?