Danish article about Ole Beich

[Sosso]

7 minutes ago, killuridols said:

If we follow the theory of Soulmonster, they would be something like a new Guns N' Roses. Not the original Guns N' Roses (which for me and the rest of the healthy fans is Axl, Slash, Izzy, Duff and Steven and for the ones with some issues, it is Axl, Olei Beich, Tracii and Rob Gardner).

There are two definitions about what a original is among fans

1: Someone who is there since the very first hour, regardless of how big or small the output of this member was

2: Someone who contributed something to the bands music and sound, regardless of the moment the member joined a band

Edited September 9, 2017 by Sosso

[killuridols]

3 minutes ago, Sosso said:

There are two definitions about what a original is among fans

1: Someone who is there since the very first hour, regardless of how big or small the output of this member was

2: Someone who contributed something to the bands music and sounds, regardless of the moment the member joined a band

"among fans"? Which fans and how many?

You can define words whatever you want, but that doesn't mean your definition is the meaning of something or that it is conventionally and widely accepted.

[Sosso]

1 minute ago, killuridols said:

"among fans"? Which fans and how many?

You can define words whatever you want, but that doesn't mean your definition is the meaning of something or that it is conventionally and widely accepted.

That is the summary from years of discussions with other fans in numerous forums and facebook groups.

[killuridols]

3 minutes ago, Sosso said:

That is the summary from years of discussions with other fans in numerous forums and facebook groups.

No, it's not. But if it was, I'm sure the definition that dictionaries and other validated sources express in their pages prevails over your nonsense.

 

Is Axl Rose an original member of AC/DC? He contributed to the band by lending them his voice, image, presence and help to finish a tour. Now go tell the AC/DC fans that Axl has equal importance as Bon Scott.

I have a shield at home in case you need it. Give me a call

[janrichmond]

1 minute ago, Sosso said:

That is the summary from years of discussions with other fans in numerous forums and facebook groups.

That may be the case as i said before,only forum/FB people would not accept 'original GnR' to mean Axl,Slash,Duff,Steven and Izzy. To the average fans those 5 guys are original.

[DieselDaisy]

Ironically - and if you look back you'd see this - I was conflicted on this. I could see the merits of Soul's position. And then I thought about it and looked at other bands and realised that it is a load of pedantic nonsense, and that we should not really be viewing bands through the prism of scientific exactitude. Everything in the history of the band can be attributed to the Appetite chaps.

[killuridols]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Ironically - and if you look back you'd see this - I was conflicted on this. I could see the merits of Soul's position. And then I thought about it and looked at other bands and realised that it is a load of pedantic nonsense, and that we should not really be viewing bands through the prism of scientific exactitude. Everything in the history of the band can be attributed to the Appetite chaps.

He would deserve some merit if he was genuinely fighting for Ole Beich's rights to be considered an original member of the band. But he put a trap on himself during his explanation or.... maybe not.... as the threads of the fabric are now visible, that all of this "pedantic nonsense", it is actually nothing less and nothing more than part of a bigger theory created to support the legitimacy of the hired Guns (and a group of people should not be studied applying the scientific method used by natural sciences).

[RONIN]

23 minutes ago, killuridols said:

He would deserve some merit if he was genuinely fighting for Ole Beich's rights to be considered an original member of the band. But he put a trap on himself during his explanation or.... maybe not.... as the threads of the fabric are now visible, that all of this "pedantic nonsense", it is actually nothing less and nothing more than part of a bigger theory created to support the legitimacy of the hired Guns (and a group of people should not be studied applying the scientific method used by natural sciences).

Exactly. I don't think SoulMonster is doing this but largely the Ole Beich horse gets dragged in here usually when someone is trying to legitimize Nu Guns at the expense of the classic AFD lineup. In Soulmonster's case, he seems to see the lineup situation in a purely black/white way where Ole, Rob, and Tracii preceded Duff, Slash, and Steven and therefore are the original lineup of GnR.

The gray area here would be: Well - yeah, I guess they are the original lineup, but they were literally there for a few days/weeks and didn't contribute anything of note to the band creatively so who cares about them? There is nothing about that lineup that exists in any form aside from a few club shows. They had no imprint on any of the music of GnR. So again, who cares about them? Should we care about the first guy who jumped off Columbus' ship from Spain and put his foot first on American soil before Columbus?  Technically, that mystery man is the first European settler to arrive in the new world (if we're not including the Vikings) - not Columbus. This is the level of pedantry that we're getting into with the Ole/Rob lineup.

[RONIN]

On 9/8/2017 at 3:29 PM, DieselDaisy said:

Ah well, looks like art triumphs over science yet again in that I've won yet again!

The point being other bands have multiple dramatis personae changes including people who are there and gone within a twinkling of an eye - departed so fast that some do not even pass down for posterity their name let alone any sort of song, recording or live experience - and nobody deems them 'founding' members. Stewart and Pete Best were perhaps founding members, but never a Tommy Moore.

Firstly, bands are not enterprises which began solely when they acquire a name which seems to be your methodology. In their early history band names are rarely trademarked or copyrighted in any sort of way, and regardless, go through multiple permutations within time frames of days - hours. The Beatles went through 'Blackjacks'; 'Quarrymen'; 'Silver Beetles'; 'Silver Beatles'; 'Johnny and the Silver Beatles'; before arriving at their eventual iconic name. Should we consider the earlier named: ''non-Beatles'' - Should we do this although we have a fully functioning Fab Four before us? The Who did not simply begin when they re-named themselves 'Oo' but were already extent under 'High Numbers'. What logic do we apply when a band goes back-and-forth between two names? Do we consider them also as going back-and-forth between separate bands? It is a faulty method. Secondly, bands are not scientific equations but (in infancy) amorphous and mutable entities, going through multiple changes between inebriated keg parties, garages, bedrooms and sweaty clubs. Where we consider drawing the line when something begins with such fellows, ubi incipit aliquid, is always going to be a somewhat arbitrary and open decision.

In Guns N' Roses's own particular circumstance, obviously the Appetite line-up are indeed the 'originals' and that is the correct personae to choose for 'founding members'. The earlier period was a sort of ''proto-Guns'' finishing school (rather like Hollywood Rose, LA Guns and Road Crew). When deciding on a chronological date we may indeed choose the earlier formation's date (c. March 1985) but paradoxically still regard the 'Appetites' as being founders, as we are not dealing with a rigorous science here but just feeling our way through a bunch of capricious drunken club bands intermingling with one and another until finding the correct formulae of personnel and nomenclature. 

Nailed it as always. I don't even understand why this is a topic of discussion - I mean if Rob and Ole had put together a Hollywood Rose style demo and there was some real imprint of that demo on Appetite, than yeah perhaps we can have a real conversation here. But these are people who literally were gone in the blink of an eye with nothing to show for it. 

[killuridols]

12 minutes ago, RONIN said:

Exactly. I don't think SoulMonster is doing this but largely the Ole Beich horse gets dragged in here usually when someone is trying to legitimize Nu Guns at the expense of the classic AFD lineup. In Soulmonster's case, he seems to see the lineup situation in a purely black/white way where Ole, Rob, and Tracii preceded Duff, Slash, and Steven and therefore are the original lineup of GnR.

The gray area here would be: Well - yeah, I guess they are the original lineup, but they were literally there for a few days/weeks and didn't contribute anything of note to the band creatively so who cares about them? There is nothing about that lineup that exists in any form aside from a few club shows. They had no imprint on any of the music of GnR. So again, who cares about them? Should we care about the first guy who jumped off Columbus' ship from Spain and put his foot first on American soil before Columbus?  Technically, that mystery man is the first European settler to arrive in the new world (if we're not including the Vikings) - not Columbus. This is the level of pedantry that we're getting into with the Ole/Rob lineup.

After reading one of his explanations, it seems to me that I could detect one thread that belongs to the hired Guns support theory and since then I became suspicious.

No one fights for lost causes so vehemently if there is not an agenda behind like in this case, the need to change the status quo, the traditional concept of who are the original members of the band.

[SoulMonster]

On 9.9.2017 at 10:16 AM, DieselDaisy said:

...and it lasted precisely the same time it would take to fry an egg? ''New starts'', appealing ''to the current rock scene''!! They were just a bunch of hair bands playing musical chairs until they found the right formula!!

Guns N' Roses were formed when Slash and Adler joined. My agreeing to allow the earlier date was just a nod to the name (and to keep nerds like you happy).

Crikey, you really see Guns N' Roses like one of your science tests, don't you?

1) The duration of the original lineup has no effect on whether it was a lineup or not, nor on whether it was the first lineup or not.

2) I am not a scientist.

On 8.9.2017 at 6:22 PM, ludurigan said:

they are the first lineup under the name "guns n Roses" but they did nothing as "guns n Roses" so they are basically a footnote

the band that wrote the songs, recorded them, released them, toured them, presented itself to the world as guns n roses -- and obviously conquered the world -- is axl, izzy, slash, duff and steven

Yes, I agree with all this. As far as output and legacy goes, they are truly a footnote. But as far as being the first lineup, they were.

[SoulMonster]

On 9.9.2017 at 8:13 PM, killuridols said:

But the funniest part is this:

The bolded is the key of the theory that supports the idea of Buckethead, Finck and the rest of the replacements being also original members

And for sure it is the answer to Diesel's question: "why are you even pursuing this?"

I was soooo naive but now I can see it clearly. Ole Beich is just a tool. No one really gives a shit for defending his two days playing with Axl. But legitimizing his role as original is vital for those who want to make this theory popular and inject it among the unknowing fans.

Now I'd like to see something, only for the fun of it, and that'd be @SoulMonster telling Axl that Tracii Guns is a founding member of Guns N' Roses

 

Of course, I would never argue that Buckethead or any other late members are original members of Guns N' Roses. That's silly.

As for Axl admitting that Tracii is a founding member of GN'R, here a direct quote from Axl: The name Guns N' Roses come from Tracii Guns and Axl Rose [...] and he went back to LA Guns.

So I don't think Axl has any problem with accepting that he and Tracii founded the band together.

Edited September 11, 2017 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

On 10.9.2017 at 3:10 AM, DieselDaisy said:

Ironically - and if you look back you'd see this - I was conflicted on this. I could see the merits of Soul's position. And then I thought about it and looked at other bands and realised that it is a load of pedantic nonsense, and that we should not really be viewing bands through the prism of scientific exactitude. Everything in the history of the band can be attributed to the Appetite chaps.

With such a...sloppy way of looking at this it because near impossible to say when a band starts. So Hollywood Rose was Guns N' Roses? And LA Guns was Guns N' Roses, too, only a littlebit less? And Tidus Sloan also, but even more less? This only works for those with an agenda where clarity and preciseness is anathema. The purpose of communication is to avoid confusion, hence we have precise definitions, and the conventional defintions are that a band is formed when guys come together to play under that name, and those first guys comprise the original lineup of that band.

[SoulMonster]

On 10.9.2017 at 6:34 AM, killuridols said:

He would deserve some merit if he was genuinely fighting for Ole Beich's rights to be considered an original member of the band. But he put a trap on himself during his explanation or.... maybe not.... as the threads of the fabric are now visible, that all of this "pedantic nonsense", it is actually nothing less and nothing more than part of a bigger theory created to support the legitimacy of the hired Guns (and a group of people should not be studied applying the scientific method used by natural sciences).

Can we keep science out if this? Whether you adhere to the normal definitions (original = the first and band = guys playing music together under a band name) has nothing to do with science

And as far as I see it, you don't need some ulterior motive to accept that yes, Ole Beich was in the first original of Guns N' Roses. It is an established fact. Taking the oppositie position, to reject what we know and testimonials from the band itself and people around, like Marc Canter, would on the other hand typically be motivated by some hidden agenda,

[SoulMonster]

On 10.9.2017 at 7:09 AM, RONIN said:

In Soulmonster's case, he seems to see the lineup situation in a purely black/white way where Ole, Rob, and Tracii preceded Duff, Slash, and Steven and therefore are the original lineup of GnR.

We have a winner! And on my team are guys like Slash, Marc and Duff, early show adverts, music historians, etc. Those who refuse to acknowledge these guys as the original lineup either do it out of ignorance (because they simply don't know about the very early history of GN'R -- which would be most casual fans etc) or because they have vicarious motives.

[SoulMonster]

On 10.9.2017 at 7:09 AM, RONIN said:

The gray area here would be: Well - yeah, I guess they are the original lineup, but they were literally there for a few days/weeks and didn't contribute anything of note to the band creatively so who cares about them?

Whether we care for them or not -- and I guess none of us care for them! -- has no bearing on whether they formed the first lineup or not. Facts aren't malleable by feelings. Facts exist regardless of whether we like them or not. We cannot re-define them our of existence nor will the fact that they played in the first lineup of Guns N' Roses go away just because we don't care about them.

[SoulMonster]

On 10.9.2017 at 7:38 AM, killuridols said:

No one fights for lost causes so vehemently if there is not an agenda behind like in this case, the need to change the status quo, the traditional concept of who are the original members of the band.

A fight for language, understanding, and clarity is never a lost cause. As I have said numerous times, I don't care about Ole Beich, but I dislike people re-defining words, and create confusion as a result, because they can't cope with reality.

[killuridols]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

We have a winner! And on my team are guys like Slash, Marc and Duff, early show adverts, music historians, etc. Those who refuse to acknowledge these guys as the original lineup either do it out of ignorance (because they simply don't know about the very early history of GN'R -- which would be most casual fans etc) or because they have vicarious motives.

Which would be those vicarious motives to not want to accept "the truth"?

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

A fight for language, understanding, and clarity is never a lost cause. As I have said numerous times, I don't care about Ole Beich, but I dislike people re-defining words, and create confusion as a result, because they can't cope with reality.

What's the reality people cannot cope with? There's no confusion on who are the original members for 99% of the fans. 

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Which would be those vicarious motives to not want to accept "the truth"?

Beats me.

[killuridols]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Beats me.

Then you just continue to talk shit..... You know there's no agenda behind, unlike in your theory.

By the way...

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

As for Axl admitting that Tracii is a founding member of GN'R, here a direct quote from Axl: The name Guns N' Roses come from Tracii Guns and Axl Rose [...] and he went back to LA Guns.

So I don't think Axl has any problem with accepting that he and Tracii founded the band together.

Where does your quote come from? I don't see a source. 

But I do remember this and the source it is Axl Rose, 2008, chat online with fans  

According to some people, the name should've been changed once there was no Tracii Guns in GUNS N' ROSES. Seriously if it wasnt changed then for that reason, then why should it ever be changed for any other reason?

Axl: "The name does come from mine and Tracii's [Guns, current L.A. GUNS guitarist] as the original inspiration but was something I played with, not Tracii, and GUNS was GUNS before Tracii joined. It was GUNS before I knocked on Izzy's window. Earlier I had gotten Tracii to use the name GUNS (as he had mentioned a girl had called him Mr. Guns sometime) so he'd stop calling his band PERSIAN ROSE. So I guess we have the girl to thank."

 

[SoulMonster]

37 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Then you just continue to talk shit..... You know there's no agenda behind, unlike in your theory.

If people go out of their way to re-define terms and reject facts (like Ole playing in the first lineup of Guns N' Roses, and that "first lineup" equals the "original lineup") it is usually because they are stupid, ignorant, or have some hidden purpose. If you insist it is not because you have some hidden purpose, then, okay, I will take your word for it.

As for the source, good question, I am trying to find it. It is obviously not from 2008 and Axl's chats. I have it noted as from after a show in 1997, but that must be a typo and it being after a show in 1987 instead. Maybe CGCBs or from that Japanse show? I will have to hear through them again and get it right.

[killuridols]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

If people go out of their way to re-define terms and reject facts (like Ole playing in the first lineup of Guns N' Roses, and that "first lineup" equals the "original lineup") it is usually because they are stupid, ignorant, or have some hidden purpose. If you insist it is not because you have some hidden purpose, then, okay, I will take your word for it.

I don't think fans are trying to redefine the word 'original' and I don't think people are either saying that Beich didn't play in the first lineup of Guns N' Roses. What people are doing is what most people functioning in a normal environment do, which is called economy of the language.

"Human language is extraordinarily economical. We can say an extraordinary amount in very few well chosen words. This economy is essential to its function. Language is what in computer science is called a soft real-time system. That is, you have a limited amount of time in which to convey your meaning. After that, your audience will get bored or go to sleep, or the event you wished to discuss or avoid will have taken place. [...]

Language is built for speed, not for precision. This is why legal documents such as contracts or statutes are so bizarrely complex and pedantic. [...] Even so, statutes and contracts seldom succeed in achieving perfect clarity, which is why there is such frequent recourse to the courts and why the corpus of laws, decisions, and precedents is so mind bogglingly large.

Language is also built for economy of vocabulary. We don’t have one word for one thing. Most of the time, we use a handful of words in different combinations to point roughly at the thing we want to say, hoping or assuming that the person we are talking to has enough common points of reference with us that they will select the correct meaning of those words out of all the possible meanings that are available.

[...] Most of the words in the language, therefore, are shortcuts for ideas that can equally be expressed in stories made up of more familiar words. [...]

The way we tell stories is also part of the economy of language. We tell stories by making references, sometimes tacit, sometimes explicit, to other stories that we assume our interlocutor knows. Again, this is necessary to the real time performance of language, since explaining all the sub-stories would take too long, and would often involve field trips."

http://everypageispageone.com/2015/08/04/the-economy-of-language-or-why-we-argue-about-words/

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

As for the source, good question, I am trying to find it. It is obviously not from 2008 and Axl's chats. I have it noted as from after a show in 1997, but that must be a typo and it being after a show in 1987 instead. Maybe CGCBs or from that Japanse show? I will have to hear through them again and get it right.

I think the quote may come from the 80s when Axl was not so conflicted about who were the real members of the band.

By 2008, he had already gone through all that legal battle and controversy about the name and that's when he decided to revisit history and remove everybody that was not him.

This is why I said that Axl would never admit or say that Tracii co-founded the band because then he would have to give Tracii rights and acknowledge him as something else. And Axl has been fierce about defending what he considers the work of his lifetime, against everyone and anyone. He says he was the last man standing and that there was Guns before everybody else came on board.

So when you are talking about revising history, stupid and ignorants, you might well be describing the very own Axl Rose. He's the number one person who would tell you that no one is an original member, except for him, and if you'd go mention Ole Beich to him, he would just tell you to fuck off.

If this guy has issues (or had them) accepting Slash and Duff as part of GN'R success, now imagine what he would tell you if you came up with the story of Ole Beich to him. Here's a collection of quotes from Axl that, at least to me, they are very clear about where he stands when it comes to defining WHO are Guns N' Roses:

Quote

As far as a new name… this is who I am, not whatever else someone else thinks of. I don't see myself as solely GUNS, but I do see myself as the only one from the past making the effort to take it forward, whether anyone approves or not, and giving beyond what many would or fight for to do so.

 

Quote

"In regard to nuGUNS, I get that sometimes it helps to be able to clarify. Personally I call this GUNS and the 'Illusions' or previous lineups 'old GUNS.' 

 

Quote

 

Would you ever consider sharing the name with the current band members?

Axl: The sharing thing is interesting, but even with all this time, the complications of the red tape and trying to get something out fall on my world to sort and not theirs. They are amazingly supportive and do their best to keep me in up spirits and focused which I had less and less of in GUNS way before 'Sweet Child' caught on. If that were to change, then that may be something to look at. I hope for us to grow more together as we continue so who knows.

 

 

Quote

 

Q: You stated in several interviews in the past that you couldn't see yourself playing with other people and still see it as GUNS N' ROSES. What made you change your mind and do you think you would have kept the name if you and the former members broke up on better terms with each other?

Axl: One man forced me to work with others. One man forced me to work with others to survive. And I can't say what would have happened on different terms. I say yes because it was agreed from day one. You have to realize we were on the street. It wasn't the first band. Whoever thought of the name kept the name unless he gave it up or moved on. Everyone was always having a new version of whatever their band name was. I wouldn't have thought of using L.A. GUNS or any of Slash's band names. We all knew that we could break up the next week. You had to have that stuff somewhat sorted between each other going in. It was a deal that we made. The issue becomes the value or perceived value now and the fans attachment and or acceptance. Really weren't things we consciously considered even during the breakup.

 

 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, killuridols said:

I don't think fans are trying to redefine the word 'original' and I don't think people are either saying that Beich didn't play in the first lineup of Guns N' Roses. What people are doing is what most people functioning in a normal environment do, which is called economy of the language.

One should almost aim at being precise and concise in communication, and to avoid confusion. One way to avoid confusion is to adhere to normal definitions, and at the very least, when straying from these, to explain one's idiosyncracies of language.

I also do not think most people here actually refuse to accept Ole Beich played in the very first lineup of GN'R, nor that "first" is not a synonym for "original". But I think a strong case could be made that there is a vocal minority that do. And we can shrug that off. Who cares, right? It's music trivia with no implications for anything?

But ut is the underlying principle that is worrisome. When people reject facts, regardless of what those facts are or what it leads to. That process is inherently problematic and can lead to outcomes that we want to avoid. Whether you reject the round earth theory, that our planet is not 6 thousand years old, that climate change haas an anthropomorphic component, that Holocaust happened, or that Ole Beich was part of the original lineup of GN'R. I hate to put that last example in such sinister company but the underlying principle is the same: people who reject established facts and substitute with their own preferred imaginary reality. And we seem to live in a time when it is becoming accetable to rejects facts and that any opinion, regardless of its foundation, is equally valid.

Again, I am NOT accusing most people here of this, some are just ignorant or have explained why they think we should forego of normal definition of "original" in this case or for music bands in general. I might not agree, but at least they have a reasoning.

 

[Bono]

Original GnR is Steven, Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy end of story. Anyone arguing other wise is doing so as some psuedo intellect fan trying to look smarter than everyone else and just playing semantics. It's pure nonsense to even suggest there is an original GnR outside of the AFD5. It's like saying the original U2 had Dick Evans in the band. Sure when they practiced in the kitchen in the begining he was there but he's not original U2 and fans who suggest it so are full of shit. 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, killuridols said:

So when you are talking about revising history, stupid and ignorants, you might well be describing the very own Axl Rose.

I am reluctant to make assumption on what Axl would say, but in my opinion he seems quite opinionated on the minutia of Gn'R history, and I believe he wouldn't deny the first lineup (because, at the very least, he knows he would be arrested for it if he did) although he might, for strategic reasons, downplay the importance of anyone else in founding the band (which will basically be a case of his words against Tracii's and he knows people listen more to him than to Tracii). But I don't know.

Thanks for the quotes, btw

Edited September 11, 2017 by SoulMonster