Any regret about the HOF induction?

[Rovim]

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

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

Really? and who wrote Rocket Queen? Civil War? Paradise City. Slash's contributions are obviously MORE important compared to Duff in these songs and Guns in general. Not only he played on these tunes and came up with them in the first place (while West Arkeen wrote ISE with Duff mainly, but the song would have never existed without West even if it was very different before getting the Duff and Guns treatment)

I'm not saying he's not important. I'm saying it's rare that every band member is equal in importance in any band man.

In Guns, Duff's bass lines make it more Guns, his arrangements and ear for what works. (and more)

But Axl, Izzy, and Slash just wrote more Guns tunes and yes, they were/are more important.

You want to tell me if it was Izzy up there it would not change it completely? his playing and songwriting. Or if you could only choose one classic member to return to Guns, Slash, Izzy, or Duff?

I realize what I'm saying is shitty, but I think it's true.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Rovim

[DieselDaisy]

8 minutes ago, Rovim said:

Really? and who wrote Rocket Queen? Civil War? Paradise City. Slash's contributions are obviously MORE important compared to Duff in these songs and Guns in general. Not only he played on these tunes and came up with them in the first place (while West Arkeen wrote ISE with Duff mainly, but the song would have never existed without West even if it was very different before getting the Duff and Guns treatment)

I'm not saying he's not important. I'm saying it's rare that every band member is equal in importance in any band man.

In Guns, Duff's bass lines make it more Guns, his arrangements and ear for what works. (and more)

But Axl, Izzy, and Slash just wrote more Guns tunes and yes, they were/are more important.

You want to tell me if it was Izzy up there it would not change it completely? his playing and songwriting. Or if you could only choose one classic member to return to Guns, Slash, Izzy, or Duff?

I realize what I'm saying is shitty, but I think it's true.

Who is to say that Slash's contributions are more important on those songs. We do not even have the full information about who wrote what!!

[moreblack]

12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Who is to say that Slash's contributions are more important on those songs. We do not even have the full information about who wrote what!!

His sound and style inform everything about the sound of Guns N Roses. Even on songs he didn't write.

[Rovim]

2 minutes ago, moreblack said:

His sound and style inform everything about the sound of Guns N Roses. Even on songs he didn't write.

Estranged and November Rain are good examples.

[Rovim]

3 hours ago, moreblack said:

His sound and style inform everything about the sound of Guns N Roses. Even on songs he didn't write.

And perhaps this can go in the other thread as well if we're totally honest. There were many reasons why new Guns were never accepted, but I think the main reason was that Slash was too damn important to replace. I think he's like a singer only with a guitar like he said. His image too.

Like even if Axl did everything right, you still can't replace Slash's sound and that is a huge chunk of what makes Guns the band it is/was. It only proves my point that just like Steven is not as important as Izzy, Duff isn't as important as Axl or Izzy or Slash.

You just look at what each member did and what they brought to the table and just like you can recognize how important a specific member was, the most important or whatever, you can tell which ones were not as important.

Edit: like wasted said: "the lack of Slash was nu Guns main problem." (lol)

Edited June 3, 2016 by Rovim

[DieselDaisy]

Alright, alright - let's assume that McKagan is less important than others.

Tier 1 members: Axl, Slash, Izzy

Tier 2 Member: Duff

Tier 3 member: Adler

Let's allocate, say, 25% to each Tier 1 member, 15% to Duff and 10% to Adler. Seem about fair?

You still end up with 50% for the Hall of Fame band, and 25% for Nugnr. The percentage in Nugnr's favour are only marginally improved under this system!

(Heck, you could ever dump Sorum, Dizzy and Gilby in a Tier 4 - but I will leave that aside for purposes of clarity.)

Edited June 3, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[Rovim]

16 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Alright, alright - let's assume that McKagan is less important than others.

Tier 1 members: Axl, Slash, Izzy

Tier 2: Members: Duff

Tier 3 member: Adler

Let's allocate, say, 25% to each Tier 1 member, 15% to Duff and 10% to Adler.

You still end up with 50% for the Hall of Fame band, and 25% for Nugnr. The percentage in Nugnr's favour are only marginally improved under this system!

(Heck, you could ever dump Sorum, Dizzy and Gilby in a Tier 4 - but I will leave that aside for purposes of clarity.)

But I'm not saying every member is equal in each tier in his ability to make it Guns N' Roses. I'm saying they are at the same level of importance in Guns compared to the lower tier members.

First tier has 3 members, but that doesn't mean it's more Guns if it's only Slash and Duff in a band compared to New Guns for example. VR was not more Guns compared to new Guns imo, even when they did It's So Easy and Mr. Brownstone live.

Cause like I said many times in this thread already, you can't have Gn'R without Axl and he's just one member, and you can't really replace Slash and expect people to accept it (on the level Axl wanted) but it's possible without Izzy, just look at what's happening now. No one cares, even if without him, Guns would have never existed in the first place.

Some members have to be there, while others, even if just as important or more, can leave and people will still accept it and/or the band will still be enough of itself to continue.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Rovim

[Sprite]

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Alright, alright - let's assume that McKagan is less important than others.

Tier 1 members: Axl, Slash, Izzy

Tier 2 Member: Duff

Tier 3 member: Adler

Let's allocate, say, 25% to each Tier 1 member, 15% to Duff and 10% to Adler. Seem about fair?

You still end up with 50% for the Hall of Fame band, and 25% for Nugnr. The percentage in Nugnr's favour are only marginally improved under this system!

(Heck, you could ever dump Sorum, Dizzy and Gilby in a Tier 4 - but I will leave that aside for purposes of clarity.)

And you still end up with Nu Guns as a viable band that toured and the other groupings being not Guns N Roses. 

Let's say everyone here cops to your point. Ok. What then? 

So a couple bands/groupings of musicians, who at one time played a show with more original GNR members than actual current GNR. Ok great. But who had the name?

It's like you argue just to argue.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Sprite said:

And you still end up with Nu Guns as a viable band that toured and the other groupings being not Guns N Roses. 

Let's say everyone here cops to your point. Ok. What then? 

So a couple bands/groupings of musicians, who at one time played a show with more original GNR members than actual current GNR. Ok great. But who had the name?

It's like you argue just to argue.

You had one great performance and fifteen years of Nugnr shite.

[moreblack]

what was the great performance?

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, moreblack said:

what was the great performance?

The Hall of Fame.

[moreblack]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The Hall of Fame.

I will say, that one was one of the coolest things that ever happened during those times. Gilby and Duff jumping up onstage with Slash in Argentina was also pretty cool.

[Rovim]

1 minute ago, moreblack said:

I will say, that one was one of the coolest things that ever happened during those times. Gilby and Duff jumping up onstage with Slash in Argentina was also pretty cool.

And Adler sounding great and him and Matt on the same stage just sharing the moment. Gilby felt like a part of it too. It was great, glad it happened. But Axl and new Guns gave great performances, and I do mean great. I don't even feel like I need to post clips.

2006 and 2010 were filled with spectacular live shows.

[Sprite]

19 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You had one great performance and fifteen years of Nugnr shite.

Dude I wish you were there with me in 2011, 12 and 14. Got loaded and jammed to some great music. 

[DieselDaisy]

I never liked Nugnr I'm afraid.

[Un42nutzly]

I'll never understand why people waste so much of their time on this forum when they aren't even a fan of the band's past/current form. All you haters can give your various reason, but none of them will begin to explain the # of time active + # of posts. You will never see me on a Nickelback forum because I have no need to be there / I am not a fan of that band and would trash them to no end for their 'cut and paste' chord progressions and pop-inspired vocal melodies... anyways I digress... I guess I'll never understand. People, you can obviously do what you want, I just don't see how it is in your best interests to be here if you are one of the people who consistently spew negativity amidst a very positive situation we have here.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Un42nutzly

[moreblack]

Not everyone's ever gonna be 100% on board with whatever's going on. But you can bet they will wanna discuss it with those that also follow the band.

[Un42nutzly]

2 minutes ago, moreblack said:

Not everyone's ever gonna be 100% on board with whatever's going on. But you can bet they will wanna discuss it with those that also follow the band.

I am speaking of those that CONSISTENTLY spew negativity. I mean go find something you enjoy and be positive. Now being critical of certain aspects, that is totally different. We all have something that we are critical about. 

[moreblack]

6 minutes ago, Un42nutzly said:

I am speaking of those that CONSISTENTLY spew negativity. I mean go find something you enjoy and be positive. Now being critical of certain aspects, that is totally different. We all have something that we are critical about. 

But is it pure negativity, or just something you don't agree with?

[Un42nutzly]

9 minutes ago, moreblack said:

But is it pure negativity, or just something you don't agree with?

If it is just criticism and I don't agree with it, so be it. I am speaking of the ones who spend a lot of time here and do not seem to enjoy the band at all - and they've made it quite clear. That being said, like Sway, I do not have the answers. It is beyond me why someone would spend so much time here if they fit in with my initial description. 

Edited June 3, 2016 by Un42nutzly

[Sprite]

11 minutes ago, Un42nutzly said:

I am speaking of those that CONSISTENTLY spew negativity. I mean go find something you enjoy and be positive. Now being critical of certain aspects, that is totally different. We all have something that we are critical about. 

It's funny because you have one part of the forum thinking Axl ruined everything, and the other half that doesn't see it that way. The ones who aren't explicitly negative towards Axl are called "axl nutswingers" by the others (some in this thread!) because I don't think the tired old argument of "Axl's massive ego" is the only thing that happened and Slash and Co. were innocent bystanders. That's revisionist history and it doesn't sit well because it seems overwhelmingly one sided. 

I think people just like to complain. Death, taxes and wishing it was a different way than it is, are the only things certain in life. It does seem odd to me that so many have so many posts but seem to despise essentially everything Axl Rose has done and there is no doubt it's his band. It's a little like the mentality that goes into cuckold porn. It's almost like denying self pleasure which ironically is what's getting them off.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Sprite

[Un42nutzly]

4 minutes ago, Sprite said:

It's funny because you have one part of the forum thinking Axl ruined everything, and the other half that doesn't see it that way. The ones who aren't explicitly negative towards Axl are called "axl nutswingers" by the others (some in this thread!) because I don't think the tired old argument of "Axl's massive ego" is the only thing that happened and Slash and Co. were innocent bystanders. That's revisionist history and it doesn't sit well because it seems overwhelmingly one sided. 

I think people just like to complain. Death, taxes and wishing it was a different way than it is, are the only things certain in life. It does seem odd to me that so many have so many posts but seem to despise essentially everything Axl Rose has done and there is no doubt it's his band. It's a little like the mentality that goes into cuckold porn. It's almost like denying self pleasure which ironically is what's getting them off.

Hahaha I really like that analogy! But that's exactly what it is, and it doesn't make any friggin' sense!

And they'll say "Well, we are allowed to have an opinion too yadda yadda yadda" 

Of course you do - but if you didn't like this, and you didn't like that, and you absolutely hated this, then why are you wasting your time on this forum? 

[DieselDaisy]

Has it ever entered your head that some people find GN'R a comedy? It is not negative - quite the reverse: it is absolute comedy gold.

[NicoRourke]

Just ignore them or hide their posts. Simple as that.

[Sprite]

2 minutes ago, Un42nutzly said:

Hahaha I really like that analogy! But that's exactly what it is, and it doesn't make any friggin' sense!

And they'll say "Well, we are allowed to have an opinion too yadda yadda yadda" 

Of course you do - but if you didn't like this, and you didn't like that, and you absolutely hated this, then why are you wasting your time on this forum? 

I just think you learn to adjust and accept it. Even the negative ones make me think about my own view so I appreciate that. 

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Has it ever entered your head that some people find GN'R a comedy? It is not negative - quite the reverse: it is absolute comedy gold.

There's the charm!