Danish article about Ole Beich

[SoulMonster]

44 minutes ago, Bono said:

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. 

On March 26 and on April 11, 1986, Guns N' Roses played its two very first shows. That's a fact. Ole Beich played bass on these two shows. That's another fact (well, some claim he was gone already after the first show).

Ole Beich was hence in the first lineup of Guns N' Roses. It wasn't just an imaginery band, nor even only a garage band, it was a band that rehearsed, wrote music (well, at least it is reasonable to assume they did) and played music at an established venue like The Troubadour. It was a proper band. The very first (=original) lineup with Ole was extremely short-lived, yes, but it still existed. It had probably no affect on the greatness that was to come, but it still existed. This subject is entirely academic because that lineup was so insignificant and just a footnote in the history of the band, but it still existed. It was there. It actually happened.

Denying something because it is easier, or because one wishes it wasn't so, or because one has some ulterior motive, is wrong regardless of the outcome of it. Whether it is Trump who claims climate change is invented by the Chinese or GN'R fans who deny the first, short-lived GN'R lineup. Any such attempt at revising history should be opposed because we cannot allow that method to be acceptable.

 

[Bono]

17 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

On March 26 and on April 11, 1986, Guns N' Roses played its two very first shows. That's a fact. Ole Beich played bass on these two shows. That's another fact (well, some claim he was gone already after the first show).

Ole Beich was hence in the first lineup of Guns N' Roses. It wasn't just an imaginery band, nor even only a garage band, it was a band that rehearsed, wrote music (well, at least it is reasonable to assume they did) and played music at an established venue like The Troubadour. It was a proper band. The very first (=original) lineup with Ole was extremely short-lived, yes, but it still existed. It had probably no affect on the greatness that was to come, but it still existed. This subject is entirely academic because that lineup was so insignificant and just a footnote in the history of the band, but it still existed. It was there. It actually happened.

Denying something because it is easier, or because one wishes it wasn't so, or because one has some ulterior motive, is wrong regardless of the outcome of it. Whether it is Trump who claims climate change is invented by the Chinese or GN'R fans who deny the first, short-lived GN'R lineup. Any such attempt at revising history should be opposed because we cannot allow that method to be acceptable.

 

Carry on. You're proving my point. Only total geeks carry the torch of the AFD5 not being original GnR. Nobody gives a fuck about anything prior and there isn't a single  person in the entire GnR fan kingdom that can claim anything before the AFD5 had any impact on them becoming a fan.  When people are talking original GnR they don't give two shits about what came before AFD5. The only people who do are pretentious nerds who feel by saying otherwise they're proving they are a bigger, better and more informed fan when all they are doing is showing what sad individual they are. When people say they wanna see the original GnR unite we all know who they are talking about and anyone who feels the need to correct that by referring to them as "classic GnR" rather than "original GnR" is pretty much a loser. They're the annoying know it alls who always feel this desperate and pathetic desire to announce to everyone how smart they are. These people are the people nobody wants to be friends with. 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Bono said:

Carry on. You're proving my point. Only total geeks carry the torch of the AFD5 not being original GnR. Nobody gives a fuck about anything prior and there isn't a single  person in the entire GnR fan kingdom that can claim anything before the AFD5 had any impact on them becoming a fan.  When people are talking original GnR they don't give two shits about what came before AFD5. The only people who do are pretentious nerds who feel by saying otherwise they're proving they are a bigger, better and more informed fan when all they are doing is showing what sad individual they are. When people say they wanna see the original GnR unite we all know who they are talking about and anyone who feels the need to correct that by referring to them as "classic GnR" rather than "original GnR" is pretty much a loser. They're the annoying know it alls who always feel this desperate and pathetic desire to announce to everyone how smart they are. These people are the people nobody wants to be friends with. 

So you are basically saying I am right but you think I am a "total geek", a "pretentious nerd", a "sad individual" and a "loser". Ouch! .

[papashaun]

Just to pop this in as well....

If you asked someone who was the original bassist of Metallica??? They reply, "Cliff Burton"  and you would be WRONG......it's Ron McGovney.....Ron was the original bassist for Metallica for the 1st year of Gigs, and also played on demos......but......95% of Metallica fans, have no clue who that even is......

In addition....who was the original lead guitarist of Metallica???? If you once again answer "Dave Mustane," you would be WRONG again.....it's Lloyd Grant...the man that only played on the first Metallica Demo for "Hit the Lights" when it was submitted.....but never became an "official member" before being replaced by Dave Mustane....who was replaced by Hammick, even before the first album dropped. 

 

Here's why I included this tid-bit: I think when it comes down to "Original Members," you have to go with the line-up that contributed the most to the first album/first major tour, or "solidified" the group.....So for GnR....I go with the AFD-5...even though others like Tracii may have toured when the band was small/getting a start.....you go with the line-up that contributed to "solidifying/establishing" the group. 

Same with Metallica....I don't think you're gonna include Ron McGovney in your "Original Line-up," even though he played on demos/played with some shows....he didn't aid in "solidifying" the band. 

 

[DieselDaisy]

Guns N' Roses's original line-up was Rose, Slash, Duff, Stradlin, McKagan. End of discussion.

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, papashaun said:

Just to pop this in as well....

If you asked someone who was the original bassist of Metallica??? They reply, "Cliff Burton"  and you would be WRONG......it's Ron McGovney.....Ron was the original bassist for Metallica for the 1st year of Gigs, and also played on demos......but......95% of Metallica fans, have no clue who that even is......

In addition....who was the original lead guitarist of Metallica???? If you once again answer "Dave Mustane," you would be WRONG again.....it's Lloyd Grant...the man that only played on the first Metallica Demo for "Hit the Lights" when it was submitted.....but never became an "official member" before being replaced by Dave Mustane....who was replaced by Hammick, even before the first album dropped. 

 

Here's why I included this tid-bit: I think when it comes down to "Original Members," you have to go with the line-up that contributed the most to the first album/first major tour, or "solidified" the group.....So for GnR....I go with the AFD-5...even though others like Tracii may have toured when the band was small/getting a start.....you go with the line-up that contributed to "solidifying/establishing" the group. 

Same with Metallica....I don't think you're gonna include Ron McGovney in your "Original Line-up," even though he played on demos/played with some shows....he didn't aid in "solidifying" the band. 

 

I think solidifying the band has nothing to do with whether you are part of the first lineup or not, but I am repeating myself 

[papashaun]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Guns N' Roses's original line-up was Rose, Slash, Duff, Stradlin, McKagan. End of discussion.

The original had 2-Duff's in it???  I'm sure you meant Adler. hahahahahha

Edited September 11, 2017 by papashaun
mispelled word in topic

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, papashaun said:

The original had 2-Duff's in it???

I was including his pancreas as an extra band member.

[papashaun]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

I was including his pancreas as an extra band member.

LOL!  And on drums.....

[Blackstar]

On 9/10/2017 at 4:01 PM, tremolo said:

I think Axl tried to do what Trent Reznor was (and still is) doing with Nine Inch Nails. The difference is that GNR never was a one-man show. What made their music great was the incredible chemistry between the 5 of them. NIN on the other hand was TR, and the musicians brought to the band were just touring members, and some guest musicians here and there for the creative process of recording albums.

Axl couldn't pull it off, I think he overrated his abilities at the time and never had the balls to admit he bit off more than he could chew.

He saw (maybe still sees) himself as the mastermind behind GNR, but the truth is they were a collective effort.

I don't think that was the case. Axl had been very defensive about this issue; in his CD era interviews he was trying to convince the fans -probably himself as well- that NuGnR was as much a band as the "old band" (maybe he actually believed that for a short period of time, during the Buckethead lineup) and not a solo project, as it was in reality. The detailed liner notes on CD (which, in some cases, take more space than the lyrics!) are also an indication of his attempt to show that NuGnR was a collaborative effort and everybody contributed; it's even possible that he was generous in giving credits to some people.

[MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

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.

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.

I agree with this part of your post about life in general and the worrying trend for ignoring facts in favour of opinion.  

And I can see where you are coming from in this debate.  

However, OB featuring in the original line up of GNR is what I would call a technicality.  The beauty of English is the flexibility the language affords us while still allowing us to be factual.

Technically, OB once featured briefly in the original lineup of GNR, is probably a more accurate statement and gives a clearer picture than OB was a founding member (which is an opinion, unless everyone can agree on a definition of founding member) or OB was part of the original line up which is misleading because it doesn't give the full picture.  

Practically, i.e. for all intents and purposes, the original line up consisted of Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy and Steven.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

Technically, OB once featured briefly in the original lineup of GNR, is probably a more accurate statement and gives a clearer picture than OB was a founding member (which is an opinion, unless everyone can agree on a definition of founding member) or OB was part of the original line up which is misleading because it doesn't give the full picture. l

You can always argue that any statement doesn't give the full picture, because you can always add additional layers of information to flesh out and provide more detail. When answering the question, Was Ole part of the first lineup, I think it is sufficient to just say Yes, he was. It isn\t necessary to point out the shortness of that tenure, or that it didn\t result in any recorded material, etc. Such information, although interesting, is digressional to the question.

And apologies for the missing question marks and other symbols, I have just changed laptop and is struggling a bit *smiley*

[MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You can always argue that any statement doesn't give the full picture, because you can always add additional layers of information to flesh out and provide more detail. When answering the question, Was Ole part of the first lineup, I think it is sufficient to just say Yes, he was. It isn\t necessary to point out the shortness of that tenure, or that it didn\t result in any recorded material, etc. Such information, although interesting, is digressional to the question.

And apologies for the missing question marks and other symbols, I have just changed laptop and is struggling a bit *smiley*

That extra information is important, not something to dismiss.  It helps to clarify OB's position.   It is necessary to add information for the purposes of being accurate whilst not being misleading.  Facts without context can be misleading.  Answering simply 'yes' to the question was OB part of the first line up, while being factual, is just the sort of thing that might lead to the confusion you would hope to avoid.

[killuridols]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

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.

"Language is built for speed, not for precision."

"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."

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

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?

Who are the people who deny the fact of Beich playing with Axl? I have not seen anyone here saying that. Not at least in this thread.

Most people do accept that Beich played one or two shows with Axl. What a majority of people refuse to do is to include Beich as part of what most fans call the original lineup. And It's hard to make a case out of it, other than this happens only because of COMMON SENSE. Not because of ulterior motives or crazy conspiracy theories.

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

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.

I know what you mean but I don't think the Ole Beich case can be included with the rest of the examples you mentioned, because in those other cases, there's an agenda behind that is tied mainly to politics.

You are exaggerating the motives here and refusing to accept there is something called economy of the language and that's basically what's going on with the Ole Beich case. But if you suspect of something "more worrisome" underlying the Ole Beich case then please say what you think that is or it could be? Otherwise you're just giving this shit a dimension that it doesn't have and I think it is very disrespectful to elevate the Ole Beich case to the same level as the Holocaust.

 

[SoulMonster]

25 minutes ago, killuridols said:

You are exaggerating the motives here and refusing to accept there is something called economy of the language and that's basically what's going on with the Ole Beich case. 

Of course I am not refusing to accept there is something called economy of language, what I am refusing to accept is that rejecting established definitions is economy of language. Because it leads to confusions and misunderstanding that will have to be cleared up later on. And writing "the AFD lineup" is just as economical as writing "the original lineup" while at the same time being both concise and precise.

I see no common sense in referring to the AFD lineup as the first lineup. I also see no common sense in re-defining other terms that are well-established. 

I didn't elevate this to the level of the Holocaust I made an explicitly stated point of the only thing that relates these two things is the underlying refusal to accept established facts. Please read again if you missed it.

 

[SoulMonster]

42 minutes ago, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

That extra information is important, not something to dismiss.  It helps to clarify OB's position.   It is necessary to add information for the purposes of being accurate whilst not being misleading.  Facts without context can be misleading.  Answering simply 'yes' to the question was OB part of the first line up, while being factual, is just the sort of thing that might lead to the confusion you would hope to avoid.

Sure in casual conversations it is always nice to add context. Say, if I was talking to someone who didn't know GN'R history, I would go something like this, "Hey, did you know Duff wasn't the original bassist in Guns N' Roses? It was this Danish dude who played with the band for a couple of shows before leaving." And then they'd go, "Uh, okay." In such a situation I would provide context so as to not make it seem like Ole actually had any imprint on the band and thus lend him more importance than is fair. 

 

[DieselDaisy]

16 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Sure in casual conversations it is always nice to add context. Say, if I was talking to someone who didn't know GN'R history, I would go something like this, "Hey, did you know Duff wasn't the original bassist in Guns N' Roses? It was this Danish dude who played with the band for a couple of shows before leaving." And then they'd go, "Uh, okay." In such a situation I would provide context so as to not make it seem like Ole actually had any imprint on the band and thus lend him more importance than is fair. 

 

Is this what counts as an example of a Soul chat-up line?

[killuridols]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Of course I am not refusing to accept there is something called economy of language, what I am refusing to accept is that rejecting established definitions is economy of language. Because it leads to confusions and misunderstanding that will have to be cleared up later on. And writing "the AFD lineup" is just as economical as writing "the original lineup" while at the same time being both concise and precise.

What would be the confusion? There is a convention among 99% of the fans that when they refer to "original lineup" they mean Axl, Slash, Izzy, Duff and Steven. Language is a convention because there's absolutely no natural relation between the objects and the names we use to refer to them.

The confusion and misunderstanding you talk about is not present among fans. So why do you want to break the status quo? Just because you are a purist of definitions? Well, then write a book on GN'R history and take it out of your system. But that will not change the convention that's been working for decades among the fans, when they talk about GN'R. And writing is not the only way fans communicate with other fans.

17 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I see no common sense in referring to the AFD lineup as the first lineup. I also see no common sense in re-defining other terms that are well-established.

I do see it and most fans do, so maybe you're in the wrong.

No one is trying to re-define anything. Not everybody is a pedantic nerd fighting to disrupt the convention that has been adopted by thousands of fans.

24 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I didn't elevate this to the level of the Holocaust I made an explicitly stated point of the only thing that relates these two things is the underlying refusal to accept established facts. Please read again if you missed it.

I don't need to read again because I did understand the part where you made the clarification, but I still don't agree with matching this case with the Holocause denial. In my opinion, that's going too far with your arguement and I think it is disrespectful.

 

[SoulMonster]

23 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Is this what counts as an example of a Soul chat-up line?

The reaction was at least typical 

24 minutes ago, killuridols said:

What would be the confusion? There is a convention among 99% of the fans that when they refer to "original lineup" 

If so it would be 100 % if people opted to say "the AFD lineup" instead of the "original lineup" when referring to the "ADS lineup" and not the "original lineup".

[SoulMonster]

25 minutes ago, killuridols said:

The confusion and misunderstanding you talk about is not present among fans. So why do you want to break the status quo? Just because you are a purist of definitions? Well, then write a book on GN'R history and take it out of your system. But that will not change the convention that's been working for decades among the fans, when they talk about GN'R. And writing is not the only way fans communicate with other fans.

The more people are wrong, the more important it is to be right.

[janrichmond]

@SoulMonster Please, for everyone's sanity GIVE IT UP NOW!!!

[SoulMonster]

26 minutes ago, killuridols said:

I don't need to read again because I did understand the part where you made the clarification, but I still don't agree with matching this case with the Holocause denial. In my opinion, that's going too far with your arguement and I think it is disrespectful.

If you think it is disrespectful then you didn't get it. In absolutely no way did I compare the atrocity of the Holocaust to the triviality of referring to the AFD lineup as the original lineup. But the underlying mechanism, to discard facts and substitute with your own reality, is the same. That's as far as that comparison goes. 

[DieselDaisy]

The Holocaust being brought up, that raises only on question: will Spielberg be filming an Ole Beich biopic?

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, janrichmond said:

@SoulMonster Please, for everyone's sanity GIVE IT UP NOW!!!

Give up? No, I see no reason to adopt a widespread inaccuracy and as long as people continue to want to discuss it with me I will happily play along.

[janrichmond]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Give up? No, I see no reason to adopt a widespread inaccuracy and as long as people continue to want to discuss it with me I will happily play along.

Pedantic wanker