Danish article about Ole Beich

[killuridols]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No one here (besides Cromwell, but I doubt he is actually here) is saying that Ole Beich was in any way important. We are just saying Ole was part of the very first incarnation of Guns N' Roses. That doesn't mean he was important, really, nor does it diminish the importance of guys like Slash and Duff who came in slightly later and actually created the fantastic music and played those amazing concerts. This surreal connection is all in your head. It basically seems too complicated for you to keep these things separated.

Fighting so much for having this guy's name written in the annals of Guns N' Roses history IS giving relevance to his existance.

I understand that from the point of view of a historian person, that information is relevant for them. But when you are in a forum (or Facebook group, or website) and there is someone always bugging fans with this nitpicking, it becomes annoying, tiresome and totally ridiculous.

No, it's not too complicated for me to keep things separated because that guy is non-existant in my head and when I think of GN'R, his face and sound doesn't come to my mind.

16 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

As I have said numerous times now, pointing out that he was in the original lineup is not a qualitative assessment of his musical abilities or his importance to the legacy of GN'R, it is just stating a plain fact. You are the one who have got your panties in a bunch because you infer that stating this simple fact as a response to you erroneously claiming he wasn't, is some kind of slight against Duff or Slash or means one has other motives than simply being jarred by blatant ignorance and historical revision

 

34 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But claiming we who insist on being historical correct are enabling people like Cromwell -- when there can ble only one of them and I doubt he reads this forum -- by pointing out a simple fact that is nevertheless wildly reported in music history books, magazines, biographies, documentaries, wikipedia, etc, is just facepalm-worthy ridiculous. But by all means, go after everybody who insists on not revising history and thus "enable Cromwell into saying things that diminishes the importance of Steven and Duff". Fight those surreal windmills of yours!

My initial comment (for which I was attacked by you in first place, not the other way around) was to the content of the article posted and nothing to do with what you commented later and all of the excuses you've made for it.

From the very beginning, you tried to explain the difference between original and irrelevant, but also carefully stating that no one could take away from Slash the fact of being a great musician and essential band member to Gn'R.

Looks to me like the panties in a bunch belong to you, since you jumped at me right after I made that comment. Probably because you were butthurt by it. And honestly, I didn't know you were one of those people, so it was just coincidence that I said that to you.

A few comments later, I attempted to understand why people do what they do. You say it is simply because you like history and fact checking. Ok, then..... should I apologize to you? I really don't know you and what are your reasons for being so vehement about this Ole guy, but if it's just what you claim, then so be it and I'm sorry for accussing you.

However, I know other fans who are truly into destroying Slash and Duff, probably mad at the fact they left Axl when he most needed them or because the whole band broke up. And I've seen people going nuts defending this idea and theory, also repeating things that Axl once unfortunately said in the midst of his rage, like Slash should have never joined the band or left after 'Lies'. Those words combined with this idea of Guns N' Roses being an eternal revolting door of musicians is what some people use to substract importance from Slash and Duff.

They are not surreal windmills...... you should get out of the bubble a bit more and probably try out other platforms where these discussions take place. You'll see this thing actually happens.

As for Cromwell, I don't find anything of what he says sweet or cool. It is pathetic. Makes his friend look even more ridiculous and miserable.

 

[comboguns]

each 2 years and a half , they replace one member, when they return to play gigs in 2001, one year after they replace paul tobias for  richard fortus , then they  toured 2006 and 2007 , they replace 2 members bucket and brain, for bumble and frank ,  then they toured 2009 to 2014 and replace robin for dj ashba, this was the 2nd most stable line up, that lasts for rather 5 years. the 1st most stable line up was the classic line up, with axl, slash, duff, izzy and steven, last more than 5 years.

if they keep this way, probably in 2019 they will replace one more member.

[DieselDaisy]

17 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

The "SFTD lineup" was the same as the TSI lineup sans Gilby. Paul Tobias wasn't officially a member until 1997; he played on SFTD as (Axl's) "guest".

You might be right but who really knows and who really cares as the concept of a 'band' is completely fluid with this Guns N' Roses operation:

Some are touring musicians like the 1992 backing band; some come in for session work like David Navarro; some even start as full blown members and then stay on behind the scenes for a bit in another capacity (Tobias and Brain). Some go; some return; hybrid line-ups are made out of two-three former incarnations. Some are full blown members one minute only to see themselves reduced to 'additionals' (on a later live album) the next like what happened to Sorum and Gilby. Some are sacked five times before they are finally sacked (Gilby); some - we just do not know as to their status (Melissa).

Adler found himself firstly guesting (two songs, reduced to one) then sacked from this guest spot at (what should have been) his own full-blown reunion haha. There was a rumour that Rose wanted Slash to guest on three songs on Chinese!!

I've said it before but Rose does not see bands the same way most people do. He seems to like a constant diaspora, a wandering of people.

Edited September 6, 2017 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Fighting so much for having this guy's name written in the annals of Guns N' Roses history IS giving relevance to his existance.

He is already in the annals of Guns N' Roses history. I am just pointing it out. And yes, this is giving relevance to his existence, but not making him relevant to the legacy of Guns N' Roses.

2 minutes ago, killuridols said:

I understand that from the point of view of a historian person, that information is relevant for them. But when you are in a forum (or Facebook group, or website) and there is someone always bugging fans with this nitpicking, it becomes annoying, tiresome and totally ridiculous.

It should be important to everybody, not only historians, to not say things that are factually wrong. And as for people always "bugging fans", "nitpicking" etc, about this, you could easily say that some fans are "bugging" others by insisting on revising history by refusing to admit that Ole Beich was, indeed, for a very short time, part of the original lineup of GN'R. So who should stop with the bugging, those that are correct or those who try to rewrite history?

As for the article, I think we both agree that what Cromwell claims is ridiculous. I think EVERYBODY here agrees on that. At least no one has said they agree.

2 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Probably because you were butthurt by it. And honestly, I didn't know you were one of those people, so it was just coincidence that I said that to you.

Butthurt? Just exasperated that people on a GN'R forum blatantly deny facts, especially when it relates to GN'R. You'd think we'd know better. There is absolutely no need to do it, I think we all love the AFD lineup and what they achieved. Their legacy is etched in stone. And like you, I couldn't really care for Ole ;). But I care for facts and find the attempts at denying history petty and pointless, really.

As for apologizing to me, nah, not necesarry, I don't think you insulted me.

And as for there being fans who truly wants to diminish the importance of Slash and Duff. Yeah, definitely, but I don't think that they do that by insisting that they weren't part of the first incarnation of the band. If they had actually said things like, "Ole was the guy who came up with the riffs," "Ole was the guy who defined the sound of the band," or similar, then yes, they would be exaggerating Ole's role in an effort to diminish theirs, but I have never, ever, never ever, heard of anyone seriously trying toargue like that. It is too stupid to even attempt that strategy.

[killuridols]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I've said it before but Rose does not see bands the same way most people do. He seems to like a constant diaspora and wandering of people.

This concept is interesting.

It really does look like that. Promiscous would be the word.

[janrichmond]

I hate it when people say you mean 'classic' Guns when referring to the AFD lineup as 'original'. Most people i speak to in real life refer to AFD Guns as original. On a forum/FB etc if you say original (meaning AFD) there's always some pedantic wanker that says  "Well by original you mean Gardner, Ole blah blah blah" NO!!! STFU 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, killuridols said:

This concept is interesting.

It really does look like that. Promiscous would be the word.

One might argue that with this fluid concept of Guns N' Roses, Axl becomes the only constant and important element, and hence he elevates himself above everybody else who come and go, and especially go.

[DieselDaisy]

If you read Canter's book, Ole was there for about two days, Tracy and Gardner for about three. You are literally discussing a period of a couple of weeks seperating GN'R forming and the Appetite line-up forming.

Edited September 6, 2017 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

11 minutes ago, janrichmond said:

I hate it when people say you mean 'classic' Guns when referring to the AFD lineup as 'original'. Most people i speak to in real life refer to AFD Guns as original. On a forum/FB etc if you say original (meaning AFD) there's always some pedantic wanker that says  "Well by original you mean Gardner, Ole blah blah blah" NO!!! STFU 

Why is it so hard to just refer to it as the "AFD lineup" and be correct while at the same time efficiently get your point across? Why insist on being imprecise? I simply don't get it. If you refer to the AFD lineup as the original lineup, what was the actualt first lineup then, the ante-original lineup? The proto-original lineup? The one-before-the-first-lineup-lineup? It just becomes silly. Unless there is some ulterior motive for why it should be erased from history....

Edited September 6, 2017 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

If you read Canter's book, Ole was there for about two days, Tracy and Gardner for about three. You are literally discussing a period of a couple of weeks from GN'R forming and the Appetite line-up forming.

Absolutely. It was only a few -- rather insignificant as far as music goes -- weeks, yet people won't even allow that to have existed in their frantic scurry to erase history. As if the fact that this lineup existed for a brief moment in time somehow threathens the legacy of the AFD lineup. It is silly. We are all intelligent enough to be able to refer to the various lineups more precisely to avoid such silly discussions. Because we ALL agree that what matters as far as legacy goes, is what happened when the AFD lineup came together.

[Ratam]

28 minutes ago, comboguns said:

each 2 years and a half , they replace one member, when they return to play gigs in 2001, one year after they replace paul tobias for  richard fortus , then they  toured 2006 and 2007 , they replace 2 members bucket and brain, for bumble and frank ,  then they toured 2009 to 2014 and replace robin for dj ashba, this was the 2nd most stable line up, that lasts for rather 5 years. the 1st most stable line up was the classic line up, with axl, slash, duff, izzy and steven, last more than 5 years.

if they keep this way, probably in 2019 they will replace one more member.

News flash  2019 theys  will replace with  Izzy and  Steven,and on and on

[janrichmond]

20 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Why is it so hard to just refer to it as the "AFD lineup" and be correct while at the same time efficiently get your point across? Why insist on being imprecise? I simply don't get it. If you refer to the AFD lineup as the original lineup, what was the actualt first lineup then, the ante-original lineup? The proto-original lineup? The one-before-the-first-lineup-lineup? It just becomes silly. Unless there is some ulterior motive for why it should be erased from history....

I say original lineup when I'm talking to normal fans in person, only in the forum world would i use the word classic so i don't get pedantic fuckers thinking they are correcting me.

[DieselDaisy]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Absolutely. It was only a few -- rather insignificant as far as music goes -- weeks, yet people won't even allow that to have existed in their frantic scurry to erase history. As if the fact that this lineup existed for a brief moment in time somehow threathens the legacy of the AFD lineup. It is silly. We are all intelligent enough to be able to refer to the various lineups more precisely to avoid such silly discussions. Because we ALL agree that what matters as far as legacy goes, is what happened when the AFD lineup came together.

Before the rapprochement, I've seen Newgnr fans use the fact that Slash was not original to make rhetorical points, so this works both ways.

I'm divided on the issue. Factual precision would support a pre-appetite original band but really, their role was so fleeting that I have no problems calling the Appetites originals. The history of early gnr barely makes any sense anyway - well it didn't make any sense until Canter's book:

''Axl and Izzy were in a band called Hollywood Rose, then Slash and Steven joined but Izzy left'' (so you basically had the same number of Appetite members right there in 1984 and in a band with 'Rose' in the title, playing Live Like A Suicide material) then Axl leaves and joins LA Guns, then Slash and Adler had Road Crew which Duffy briefly was in (again, three Appetite members) etc etc.''

It is basically a lot of people playing in different combos until the correct five fit.

[Blackstar]

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You might be right but who really knows and who really cares as the concept of a 'band' is completely fluid with this Guns N' Roses operation:

Some are touring musicians like the 1992 backing band; some come in for session work like David Navarro; some even start as full blown members and then stay on behind the scenes for a bit in another capacity (Tobias and Brain). Some go; some return; hybrid line-ups are made out of two-three former incarnations. Some are full blown members one minute only to see themselves reduced to 'additionals' (on a later live album) the next like what happened to Sorum and Gilby. Some are sacked five times before they are finally sacked (Gilby); some - we just do not know as to their status (Melissa).

Adler found himself firstly guesting (two songs, reduced to one) and then sacked from this very guest spot at (what should have been) his own full-blown reunion haha. There was a rumour that Rose wanted Slash to guest on three songs on Chinese!!

I've said it before but Rose does not see bands the same way most people do. He seems to like a constant diaspora and wandering of people.

I think part of it has to do with the way they operated already in the early days: there was the band of 5 members and people who were around as co-writers and sort of members of parallel lineups or pairs (West Arkeen, Del...). But it's mostly the result of the 1996/97 breakup with the starting point being Izzy's departure (which was the beginning of the band"s disintegration). I don't think Axl had this mentality before, but after the core members had gone and since he decided to go on as GnR (and then the first CD lineup fled too), anyone could be "in" GnR in any form/role.

[killuridols]

20 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It should be important to everybody, not only historians, to not say things that are factually wrong. And as for people always "bugging fans", "nitpicking" etc, about this, you could easily say that some fans are "bugging" others by insisting on revising history by refusing to admit that Ole Beich was, indeed, for a very short time, part of the original lineup of GN'R. So who should stop with the bugging, those that are correct or those who try to rewrite history?

No, lol.... why?? It is not for me and never will be. And I know for the majority of fans this guy will never be part of their mental associations with Guns N' Roses.

I don't think people are trying to "rewrite history" in a malicious way as you present it. Most fans know the original lineup as the AFD lineup and there is little you can do about it.

Who should stop with the bugging?

The historians, certainly. There's no point and people will not change their minds. Especially when there are no valuable reasons to make this change.

32 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Butthurt? Just exasperated that people on a GN'R forum blatantly deny facts, especially when it relates to GN'R. You'd think we'd know better. There is absolutely no need to do it, I think we all love the AFD lineup and what they achieved. Their legacy is etched in stone. And like you, I couldn't really care for Ole ;). But I care for facts and find the attempts at denying history petty and pointless, really.

But your exasperation nearly borders neurosis and it's really not necessary

It is not an attempt to deny history. That history you refer to barely exists and it is so irrelevant like a morning fart. Do you think the number of times a band member took a shit or a piss should also be included in the annals of GN'R history? (Probably you do, if you think Ole Beich should be included).

There is no malicious intentions behind it. It is basically a collective imaginario where Ole Beich is not part of because he did absolutely NOTHING for Guns N' Roses as a band.

And people (fans) recall Guns N' Roses for being a band of performing musicians with music of their own (and a couple covers ). Beich name is not written anywhere in those credits and most fans have never seen/hear Beich play with Guns N' Roses. So asking fans to change their mental associations to include a useless irrelevant guy, it is petty and pointless, really.

41 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

And as for there being fans who truly wants to diminish the importance of Slash and Duff. Yeah, definitely, but I don't think that they do that by insisting that they weren't part of the first incarnation of the band. If they had actually said things like, "Ole was the guy who came up with the riffs," "Ole was the guy who defined the sound of the band," or similar, then yes, they would be exaggerating Ole's role in an effort to diminish theirs, but I have never, ever, never ever, heard of anyone seriously trying toargue like that. It is too stupid to even attempt that strategy.

Not exactly like that but I've seen one popular wacko correcting people like nuts in an attempt to demostrate Axl is the only band member that matters, the one who was around from day one and never left.

Also to say that Slash was a 'replacement' as well, whenever someone else talked about the hired Guns.

 

[SoulMonster]

20 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Before the rapprochement, I've seen Newgnr fans use the fact that Slash was not original to make rhetorical points, so this works both ways.

What sort of rhetorical point could one possibly make from it? Whether Slash was in the first lineup or not, has no relevance to anything.

[maynard]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I find it about equally entertaining to call kids out for stubbornly attempting to revise history as it is to hear their resulting whining about me being boring at parties.

It's just... you're the stereotypical autistic nerd. You can't blame people.

I do enjoy reading your posts on science and religion among other topics.

[SoulMonster]

13 minutes ago, killuridols said:

No, lol.... why?? It is not for me and never will be. And I know for the majority of fans this guy will never be part of their mental associations with Guns N' Roses.

I don't think people are trying to "rewrite history" in a malicious way as you present it. Most fans know the original lineup as the AFD lineup and there is little you can do about it.

Who should stop with the bugging?

The historians, certainly. There's no point and people will not change their minds. Especially when there are no valuable reasons to make this change.

But your exasperation nearly borders neurosis and it's really not necessary

It is not an attempt to deny history. That history you refer to barely exists and it is so irrelevant like a morning fart. Do you think the number of times a band member took a shit or a piss should also be included in the annals of GN'R history? (Probably you do, if you think Ole Beich should be included).

There is no malicious intentions behind it. It is basically a collective imaginario where Ole Beich is not part of because he did absolutely NOTHING for Guns N' Roses as a band.

And people (fans) recall Guns N' Roses for being a band of performing musicians with music of their own (and a couple covers ). Beich name is not written anywhere in those credits and most fans have never seen/hear Beich play with Guns N' Roses. So asking fans to change their mental associations to include a useless irrelevant guy, it is petty and pointless, really.

Not exactly like that but I've seen one popular wacko correcting people like nuts in an attempt to demostrate Axl is the only band member that matters, the one who was around from day one and never left.

Also to say that Slash was a 'replacement' as well, whenever someone else talked about the hired Guns.

I like the fact that you are now implying that yes, Ole Beich played in the first lineup of Guns N' Roses, but that it doesn't matter and there is no point in being factual about it because it is so irrelevant to the history of Guns N' Roses. Thank you, now I can appreciate where you are coming from.

But to me, the fact that it is a widespread error and that it is deeply ingrained in many's minds, is absolutely zero reason to not be correct about it. The more people are wrong, the more important it is to be right. This is a principle and it works on even trivial things. Sure, I wouldn't bother to point this out to a casual music fan, but here on a site for the most hardcore fans of GN'R I would think we'd appreciate and be interested in the history of the band to the extent that we wouldn't deliberately refuse part of its history, no matter how insignificant it might be.

Just now, maynard said:

It's just... you're the stereotypical autistic nerd. You can't blame people.

I do enjoy reading your posts on science and religion among other topics.

Now I would like to point out all the various ways you are wrong in how I behave like an autistic nerd, but I don't think it is the right time for that

[killuridols]

28 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I like the fact that you are now implying that yes, Ole Beich played in the first lineup of Guns N' Roses, but that it doesn't matter and there is no point in being factual about it because it is so irrelevant to the history of Guns N' Roses. Thank you, now I can appreciate where you are coming from.

But to me, the fact that it is a widespread error and that it is deeply ingrained in many's minds, is absolutely zero reason to not be correct about it. The more people are wrong, the more important it is to be right. This is a principle and it works on even trivial things. Sure, I wouldn't bother to point this out to a casual music fan, but here on a site for the most hardcore fans of GN'R I would think we'd appreciate and be interested in the history of the band to the extent that we wouldn't deliberately refuse part of its history, no matter how insignificant it might be.

I did say he played one show and was there for a couple days, probably most of the time scratching his scrotum and picking his nose, but right over there... next to the greatest of the greatest: Axl Rose

There are many types of people in this forum, even though most of them I assume may be die-hards because being at this forum is painful , but all in all I don't think even hardcores care that much about this guy and the two strings he played with Axl, one night in 1985.

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

What sort of rhetorical point could one possibly make from it? Whether Slash was in the first lineup or not, has no relevance to anything.

The rhetorical point, an one I completely disagree with, that Slash is somehow not a legitimising factor, and that newgnr are bona fide. 

[DieselDaisy]

This is one year before Guns N' Roses were formed. Recognise the lead singer, drummer and lead guitarist?

This might have been as early as 1983, two years before GN'R. Recognise a rhythm guitarist and lead singer.

These people were all playing together before Guns. Hollywood Rose is surely a proto-Guns N' Roses in fact, like what the Quarrymen were to The Beatles. 

[comboguns]

 

[RONIN]

"Without Ole Beich, there would be no Guns N' Roses." - W. Axl Rose.

[killuridols]

All hail THE Ole Beich!

 

[StrangerInThisTown]

7 minutes ago, killuridols said:

All hail THE Ole Beich!

 

That's the most woman-like photo of Axl I've ever seen, even holding onto a pretty muscular guy lol