Danish article about Ole Beich

[downzy]

I've always viewed arguments over original vs classic lineups as a waste of time.  

If people want to call the AFD line the original lineup then fine.  Are they technically correct?  No.  

But does it really matte in the grand scheme of thingsr?  No.  

[Daedalus]

The original  title only matters, when the real-original guy has a solo gig and has to call himself "the original" to get an audience.

Like... That Guy, the original AC/DC singer. Or, That Other Guy, the original Aerosmith guitarist. And so on.

[Tom-Ass]

On 9/6/2017 at 10:07 AM, default_ said:

I can see Chinese fans trying to legitimize the likes of Ole just to legitimize the circus years of Axl solo career as original GNR.

 

They do it all the time...

[ludurigan]

21 hours ago, downzy said:

I've always viewed arguments over original vs classic lineups as a waste of time.  

If people want to call the AFD line the original lineup then fine.  Are they technically correct?  No.  

But does it really matte in the grand scheme of thingsr?  No.  

Of course Axl, Izzy, Slash, Duff and Steven are the original lineup

They are the ones who wrote the songs, who recorded the first album, who released the first album, who toured the first album etc etc etc

Who cares if two or three or four or five other people were in the band for two minutes before that? How many songs these people wrote for GNR? How many shows these people played as GNR?

Seriously...

[SoulMonster]

46 minutes ago, ludurigan said:

Of course Axl, Izzy, Slash, Duff and Steven are the original lineup

They are the ones who wrote the songs, who recorded the first album, who released the first album, who toured the first album etc etc et

Yet they did comprise the very first incarnation of GN'R which is kinda the requirement to be the "original lineup"

[ludurigan]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yet they did comprise the very first incarnation of GN'R which is kinda the requirement to be the "original lineup"

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

[SoulMonster]

10 minutes ago, 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

I agree with all of this.

[Sosso]

11 minutes ago, 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

That would mean that Buckethead and Finck are original GN'R members too. 

[ludurigan]

35 minutes ago, Sosso said:

That would mean that Buckethead and Finck are original GN'R members too. 

no it doesnt

 

37 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I agree with all of this.

sorry i misunderstoood you

[SoulMonster]

15 minutes ago, ludurigan said:

sorry i misunderstoood you

I agreed with everything you said but it has no bearing upon the fact that Slash, Steven and Duff were not part of the first lineup. They were, in my subjective opinion, the best lineup, they were, probably the most successful lineup, but were not the original lineup. But I can't be bothered to discuss the meaning of "original" anymore, just read my other posts in this thread

[ludurigan]

23 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I agreed with everything you said but it has no bearing upon the fact that Slash, Steven and Duff were not part of the first lineup. They were, in my subjective opinion, the best lineup, they were, probably the most successful lineup, but were not the original lineup. But I can't be bothered to discuss the meaning of "original" anymore, just read my other posts in this thread

yeah me too, this is a silly discussion. I would say the word "first" lineup is acceptable, because that was what it was. The word "original" doesnt fit whatever line up existed before Axl, Izzy, Slash, Duff and Steven because the word "original" can also mean "authentic, genuine, actual, true, bona fide;", which can only be applied to Axl, Izzy, Slash, Duff and Steven

(just copied and pasted from google below)

o·rig·i·nal

əˈrijənl/

adjective

adjective: original

1. 1.

   present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest.

   "the original owner of the house"

   synonyms:

   indigenous, native, aboriginal, autochthonous; More first, earliest, early "the original inhabitants"

2. 2.

   created directly and personally by a particular artist; not a copy or imitation.

   "original Rembrandts"

   synonyms:

   first, earliest; More primary; untouched, unedited, uncut "I prefer the original version of the story" authentic, genuine, actual, true, bona fide; informalkosher "original Rembrandts"

3. 3.

   not dependent on other people's ideas; inventive and unusual.

   "a subtle and original thinker"

   synonyms:

   innovative, creative, imaginative, inventive; More new, novel, fresh, refreshing; unusual, unconventional, unorthodox, groundbreaking, pioneering, avant-garde, cutting-edge, unique, distinctive "the film is highly original"

noun

noun: original; plural noun: originals

1. 1.

   something serving as a model or basis for imitations or copies.

   "the portrait may be a copy of the original"

   • the form or language in which something was first produced or created.

     noun: the original

     "the study of Russian texts in the original"

     synonyms:

     archetype, prototype, source, master "a copy of the original"

   • a person or place on which a character or location in a literary work is based.

     "the paper where the original of the play's Walter Burns worked"
   • a book or recording that has not been previously made available in a different form.

     "paperback originals"
   • a garment made to order from a design specially prepared for a fashion collection.
2. 2.

   an eccentric or unusual person.

   "he was one of the true originals"

   synonyms:

   individualist, individual, eccentric, nonconformist, free spirit, maverick; More

[Sosso]

53 minutes ago, ludurigan said:

no it doesnt

 

 

Yes, it does

Edited September 8, 2017 by Sosso

[DieselDaisy]

Why are you even pursuing this Soul? Look, let's analyses other band's formative stages,

Beatles: Pete Best was in the Beatles for two years. Sutcliffe was in for one year. Most people know of Best and Sutcliffe's role, as progenitors. You can hear lots of their stuff on The Anthology 1.

Stones: Stu was in the band for one year and continued in a backing role until his death in the '80s. The Stones made sure he was posthumously inducted into the Hall of Fame as a 'Stone'. He was a legend and rightly regarded as a founding member.

Ole Beich and Gardner were there for two weeks!! Two weeks!! They are the equivalent of Tommy Moore (drummer for the Beatles), Doug Sandom (drummer for The Who) Tony Chapman and Dick Taylor (rhythm section for The Stones). Ever heard of any of them? In actual fact I'm doing some of them a great disservice comparing them to Ole and Gardner as Tommy Moore did a tour, and Sandom attended a record company rehearsal with the band.

Did you know that The Doors had a bass player? Nobody now remembers his name. Would you regard him as a founding member of The Doors?

How about Tim Staffell, Queen's bassist.

Edited September 8, 2017 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

PS

Some more names,

Does anyone here know who Maiden's first vocalist was? Di' Anno? Forget it. Four points out of five if you said Dennis Wilcock but you are still incorrect. Paul Day.

Did you know that Metallica had a black guitarist. He is so fleeting he is not even warranted a mention on wikipedia. He is not even 'Ron McGoveny' level haha, an early Metallica bassist.

Edited September 8, 2017 by DieselDaisy
Shite spelling

[soon]

The newest Appetite for Distortion interviewing an early friend and 'funder' of GnR had some insights into early incarnations that were new to me.  Worth a listen for sure.

Edited September 8, 2017 by soon

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Why are you even pursuing this Soul? Look, let's analyses other band's formative stages,

Beatles: Pete Best was in the Beatles for two years. Sutcliffe was in for one year. Most people know of Best and Sutcliffe's role, as progenitors. You can hear lots of their stuff on The Anthology 1.

Stones: Stu was in the band for one year and continued in a backing role until his death in the '80s. The Stones made sure he was posthumously inducted into the Hall of Fame as a 'Stone'. He was a legend and rightly regarded as a founding member.

Ole Beich and Gardner were there for two weeks!! Two weeks!! They are the equivalent of Tommy Moore (drummer for the Beatles), Doug Sandom (drummer for The Who) Tony Chapman and Dick Taylor (rhythm section for The Stones). Ever heard of any of them? In actual fact I'm doing some of them a great disservice comparing them to Ole and Gardner as Tommy Moore did a tour, and Sandom attended a record company rehearsal with the band.

Did you know that The Doors had a bass player? Nobody now remembers his name. Would you regard him as a founding member of The Doors?

How about Tim Staffell, Queen's bassist.

I am not really pursuing it. I was out of the discussion when Isaid, "I can't be bothered to discuss [...]" followed by no more posts on the issue.

Would I consider the bass player in Door a founding member? Yes, if he was part of founding the band. Because that's kinda the definition of that. Is "founding" another term people struggle with?

Not sure what other point you are trying to make -- no one disagrees on the shortness of Ole's tenure.

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

I am not really pursuing it. I was out of the discussion when Isaid, "I can't be bothered to discuss [...]" followed by no more posts on the issue.

Would I consider the bass player in Door a founding member? Yes, if he was part of founding the band. Because that's kinda the definition of that. Is "founding" another term people struggle with?

Not sure what other point you are trying to make -- no one disagrees on the shortness of Ole's tenure.

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. 

[ludurigan]

5 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Firstly, bands are not enterprises which began solely when they acquire a name

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. 

thanks!

i love when someone can articulate things properly!

[SoulMonster]

7 hours ago, 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. 

No one has said that a band is an enterprise and need to have their name registered for it to be existing. A band is a band when some guys come together and form one, e.g. say, "Hey, let's play music together and let's call us The Shit", or whatever. It is not more complicated than this. That's when that band is formed, that's when that band comes to exist. If they played under a different name before, then that was a different band, even if it were the same guys. Hell, you might also say it was the same band if they played with no name, because, maybe they couldn't bother coming up with a name. Some guys have multiple bands at the same time, with different names, either because they play different styles of music in the various bands or because they want to appeal to different people. Same people, different bands - across time or simultaneously.

So when Tracii and Axl decided to play together again they founded a new band, Guns N' Roses. It wasn't LA Guns nor was it Hollywood Rose. It was a mix. Intended as a new start, Intended to draw audience. Intended to combine the best of both. They took what was best, from either band, and made a new band they hoped would appeal to the current rock scene. That's when Guns N' Roses started and Tracii and Axl were the founding members. Rob, Ole and Izzy were not founding members, as far as I remember the story. But these guys were all part of the original lineup (as in the first lineup).

Arguing that the band was formed when Tracii and Axl decided to combine LA Guns and Hollywood Rose, yet admitting it is paradoxical to claim the AFD5 were the founding members, is, exactly that, paradoxial. And the reason why you end up with such cognitive dissonance is your insistence that the AFD5 lineup is both the original lineup and the founding members, despite knowing they were neither the first lineup nor that all of them were involved in founding the band. This can all be resolved when you adhere to normal definitions (e.g. "founding member" being those that actually found something, and "original" (in this case) being the first of something) which have been made by cleverer men than both of us.

[ludurigan]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

If they played under a different name before, then that was a different band, even if it were the same guys.

 

no, that is the same band with a different name

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

So when Tracii and Axl decided to play together again they founded a new band, Guns N' Roses. It wasn't LA Guns nor was it Hollywood Rose. It was a mix. Intended as a new start, Intended to draw audience. Intended to combine the best of both. They took what was best, from either band, and made a new band they hoped would appeal to the current rock scene. That's when Guns N' Roses started and Tracii and Axl were the founding members. Rob, Ole and Izzy were not founding members, as far as I remember the story. But these guys were all part of the original lineup (as in the first lineup).

...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).

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Arguing that the band was formed when Tracii and Axl decided to combine LA Guns and Hollywood Rose, yet admitting it is paradoxical to claim the AFD5 were the founding members, is, exactly that, paradoxial. And the reason why you end up with such cognitive dissonance is your insistence that the AFD5 lineup is both the original lineup and the founding members, despite knowing they were neither the first lineup nor that all of them were involved in founding the band. This can all be resolved when you adhere to normal definitions (e.g. "founding member" being those that actually found something, and "original" (in this case) being the first of something) which have been made by cleverer men than both of us.

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

[MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle]

5 hours ago, ludurigan said:

thanks!

i love when someone can articulate things properly!

I love this thread.   Enjoy reading both Soulmonster's and DiesalDaisy's posts.  Very different perspectives that both make total sense in their own way, but that's what so great about them.  Plus I love both their writing styles...there are a few other members whose posts never fail to entertain.

[killuridols]

I think @ludurigan's post nails it perfectly in a nutshell:

On 8/9/2017 at 0:21 PM, ludurigan said:

Of course Axl, Izzy, Slash, Duff and Steven are the original lineup

They are the ones who wrote the songs, who recorded the first album, who released the first album, who toured the first album etc etc etc

Who cares if two or three or four or five other people were in the band for two minutes before that? How many songs these people wrote for GNR? How many shows these people played as GNR?

Also @DieselDaisy arguments are killer.

But the funniest part is this:

12 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

So when Tracii and Axl decided to play together again they founded a new band, Guns N' Roses. It wasn't LA Guns nor was it Hollywood Rose. It was a mix. Intended as a new start, Intended to draw audience. Intended to combine the best of both. They took what was best, from either band, and made a new band they hoped would appeal to the current rock scene. That's when Guns N' Roses started and Tracii and Axl were the founding members. Rob, Ole and Izzy were not founding members, as far as I remember the story. But these guys were all part of the original lineup (as in the first lineup)

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

 

[Sosso]

10 minutes ago, killuridols said:

 

 

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 want to make this theory popular and inject it among the unknowing fans.

 

You said that Slash, Duff and Steven are original members because they toured and released something under the GN'R name. The same could be said about their replacements because they did the same.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Sosso

[killuridols]

4 minutes ago, Sosso said:

You said that Slash, Duff and Steven and Steven are original members because they toured and released something under the GN'R name. The same could be said about their replacemnts because they did the same.

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).