Jump to content

The "New Album" Thread . The maybe, possibly, at some point, soon, whenever, wtf Axl thread🤞


Recommended Posts

I think of the AFD 5 as the 'original lineup', even though it technically isn't  correct. Seems a bit pedantic to think otherwise! 

Whatever lineup they want to roll out under the GNR name is fine by me though.....as long as they do something different and new. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, allwaystired said:

I think of the AFD 5 as the 'original lineup', even though it technically isn't  correct. Seems a bit pedantic to think otherwise! 

I think it is weird to refer to people being factual as being "pedantic". We should always strive for accuracy, in my opinion.

My question is, why would you refer to the AFD5 lineup as "original" when you know it wasn't? This deliberate decision to circumvent facts mystifies me. Someone earlier mentioned they did it to troll people, fine. Someone else had this convoluted explanation where they considered Guns N' Roses to be more of a concept than a band, and as such they could say it started with the AFD5 lineup, fine. Why do you do it?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I think it is weird to refer to people being factual as being "pedantic". We should always strive for accuracy, in my opinion.

My question is, why would you refer to the AFD5 lineup as "original" when you know it wasn't? This deliberate decision to circumvent facts mystifies me. Someone earlier mentioned they did it to troll people, fine. Someone else had this convoluted explanation where they considered Guns N' Roses to be more of a concept than a band, and as such they could say it started with the AFD5 lineup, fine. Why do you do it?

They are probably the same types of people who can't accept Chinese Democracy as a Guns N' Roses album, only because they didn't like the lineup behind it.

Or the people that can't accept Disney's Star Wars trilogy, which I understand, but they are still Star Wars movies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I think it is weird to refer to people being factual as being "pedantic". We should always strive for accuracy, in my opinion.

My question is, why would you refer to the AFD5 lineup as "original" when you know it wasn't? This deliberate decision to circumvent facts mystifies me. Someone earlier mentioned they did it to troll people, fine. Someone else had this convoluted explanation where they considered Guns N' Roses to be more of a concept than a band, and as such they could say it started with the AFD5 lineup, fine. Why do you do it?

Laziness maybe? It doesn't really bother me that other people were in the band before- it's sort of irrelevant to me and is the same with most bands. I imagine all of them have things like little brothers,mates from the pub, pals from school etc who were in the band when the 'band' was them in their bedrooms etc. 

If you really want to split hairs, those members would be 'original' - but most people couldn't really care less, even though it's technically inaccurate. That's probably how I feel about it- the original members to me are the ones that released the first singles/album.

As it stands though, GNR to me is whoever is in the band at present. I like the current band lineup- think they'll all great talents. I don't like the absolute waste of that talent that goes on though through a total lack of progression....which is what makes things so frustrating. The squandering of potential while far lesser talents do so much. 

 

Edited by allwaystired
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

 

My question is, why would you refer to the AFD5 lineup as "original" when you know it wasn't?

A similar thing with Rush, Geddy Lee technically was not even in the first iteration - Jeff Jones was there before Geddy replaced him.  But when people talk about Rush's "original lineup" they reference the Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson, John Rutsey lineup because that is the first lineup to actually be the band to do anything with the name Rush

So to me, I just don't worry about correct or incorrect because in context everyone knows what we mean by "original" anyways and I just roll with the colloquial terms

For rock music in general, there is a tendency to not count any casual lineups that kind of just were a passing thing before the "real" band came together and actually did the stuff that made that band, that band

 

Edited by WhazUp
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Free Bird said:

Believing in this was probably Axl's biggest mistake out of many stupid things he did that ended up ruin one of the greatest bands in the world.

GNR in their prime wasn't just Axl. That's fact.

The new version of the band when Axl left and created his own in the mid 90s. That was probably all Axl. But that to led nowhere to many peoples opinion, including mine.

I never said GNR was just Axl. I said the only constant from GNR's formation till present-day is Axl Rose. 

You refuse to accept reality, which is that there was a Guns N' Roses before Slash, Duff and Steven. There was a Guns N' Roses after Izzy quit and Adler was fired. And there was a Guns N' Roses after Slash and Duff quit the band.

Edited by GnR Chris
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DTJ80 said:

Rumours abound that there is a snippet of a newer version of Ain’t Going Down out there….🤔

Not heard it myself but folks on Discord are saying it doesn’t sound like the versions out there already….

With vocals? Or just maybe the crap they added to the AFD Boxset?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GnR Chris said:

I never said GNR was just Axl. I said the only constant from GNR's formation till present-day is Axl Rose. 

You refuse to accept reality, which is that there was a Guns N' Roses before Slash, Duff and Steven. There was a Guns N' Roses after Izzy quit and Adler was fired. And there was a Guns N' Roses after Slash and Duff quit the band.

You're right, I misquoted you. He was the only constant, that's true. But I'm not refusing reality either. I'm not denying there was a GNR before and after. I'm just saying the band with Ole and Tracii isn't the same band that became famous. The early days were completely unimportant to the bands legacy and it was a very short amount of time without any kind of achievements.

Nice try but I'm not startibg a debate about GNR after 96 :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, axlvai said:

With vocals? Or just maybe the crap they added to the AFD Boxset?

Apparently with vocals - but it’s the 90s vocals. People on Discord are now saying it’s a fake ‘leak’ though. I guess we will need to wait until the UYI boxset appears before we get a clean sounding version.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/25/2021 at 12:35 PM, SoulMonster said:

It is what "original" means :) I have never understood why this rubs so many fans the wrong way. It doesn't in any form or shame reduce the significance of the AFD lineup, it doesn't in any shape or form means that the original lineup was important or anything, it doesn't in any shape or form means that Steven. Slash and Duff weren't extremely important members of Guns N' Roses. It just means they weren't the first.

I am a hardcore AFD lineup fan. To me, that was Guns N' Roses at its best. But I can still at the same time admit that Rob Gardner played drums in Guns N' Roses before Steven did, that Ole Beich played drums before Duff did, and that Tracii Guns played lead guitar before Slash did. Steven, Duff and Slash are still awesome, just not the original band members. They can be awesome and be second. 

Ole Beich played bass...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, WhazUp said:

A similar thing with Rush, Geddy Lee technically was not even in the first iteration - Jeff Jones was there before Geddy replaced him.  But when people talk about Rush's "original lineup" they reference the Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson, John Rutsey lineup because that is the first lineup to actually be the band to do anything with the name Rush

So to me, I just don't worry about correct or incorrect because in context everyone knows what we mean by "original" anyways and I just roll with the colloquial terms

For rock music in general, there is a tendency to not count any casual lineups that kind of just were a passing thing before the "real" band came together and actually did the stuff that made that band, that band

 

The Beatles is a good example too. No-one really thinks of them as anything other than John, Paul, George and Ringo, despite the fact two of them were 'replacements'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, allwaystired said:

The Beatles is a good example too. No-one really thinks of them as anything other than John, Paul, George and Ringo, despite the fact two of them were 'replacements'. 

Of course not. But this isn't about who made a band popular, but who were in the first lineup. That's actually often two entirely different things. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...