sweetness Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 This is not GN'R disbanding, and then Axl coming back and getting people together and saying its the same as before. The other guys left the band, the band, although with one remaining member was still GN'R. New members were needed, they were brought in. It is what it is. The Beatles arguement is irrelevant. The beatles Disbanded. The other members did not just leave one guy remaining. They all greed that there would be no more beatles. Now for sure as we look back if Paul decided to stay and brought in other people im sure that everyone wouldnt have been happy. But it's a big difference between a band continuing with only one of its original members, and a band reforming with only one of them.If Paul had always stayed on using the beatles name, there would be much less of an issue...Hey someones comparing GN'R to the Beatles!But the thing is, there is a very big gap of mateirial between the old band and the new band. Its not like GNR was makeing albums as members gradualy left. The last GNR album had Paul Tobias in place of Izzy, and hes gone too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokingarthur Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 This is not GN'R disbanding, and then Axl coming back and getting people together and saying its the same as before. The other guys left the band, the band, although with one remaining member was still GN'R. New members were needed, they were brought in. It is what it is. The Beatles arguement is irrelevant. The beatles Disbanded. The other members did not just leave one guy remaining. They all greed that there would be no more beatles. Now for sure as we look back if Paul decided to stay and brought in other people im sure that everyone wouldnt have been happy. But it's a big difference between a band continuing with only one of its original members, and a band reforming with only one of them.If Paul had always stayed on using the beatles name, there would be much less of an issue...Hey someones comparing GN'R to the Beatles!But the thing is, there is a very big gap of mateirial between the old band and the new band. Its not like GNR was makeing albums as members gradualy left. The last GNR album had Paul Tobias in place of Izzy, and hes gone too.But Dizzy was there durring the UYI tours. And anyway, does it matter what they are called? We all know the truth anyway. The label means nothing. The music is what we want. And Axl as the frontman ofcourse.I could care less what the band is called honestly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetness Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 This is not GN'R disbanding, and then Axl coming back and getting people together and saying its the same as before. The other guys left the band, the band, although with one remaining member was still GN'R. New members were needed, they were brought in. It is what it is. The Beatles arguement is irrelevant. The beatles Disbanded. The other members did not just leave one guy remaining. They all greed that there would be no more beatles. Now for sure as we look back if Paul decided to stay and brought in other people im sure that everyone wouldnt have been happy. But it's a big difference between a band continuing with only one of its original members, and a band reforming with only one of them.If Paul had always stayed on using the beatles name, there would be much less of an issue...Hey someones comparing GN'R to the Beatles!But the thing is, there is a very big gap of mateirial between the old band and the new band. Its not like GNR was makeing albums as members gradualy left. The last GNR album had Paul Tobias in place of Izzy, and hes gone too.But Dizzy was there durring the UYI tours. And anyway, does it matter what they are called? We all know the truth anyway. The label means nothing. The music is what we want. And Axl as the frontman ofcourse.I could care less what the band is called honestly.True, but all of this "OMG GNR is back!" hype is bullshit. Where are these guys coming back from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeppelin Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Mick Wall is a complete moron. Such a biased and wasted opinion from someone who had to "sneak through the backdoor" and into a Guns N' Roses concert. You have to love those choice words. Comparing Paul McCartney and Guns N' Roses in a pathetic little blog is the most retarded thing you could ever do. Ahh, I love how the term "nobodies" keeps popping up to describe the new band. Hm. When AFD came out, the band were "nobodies" and the record didn't even sell well until the next year. So what was happening that year then? The band was considered "nobodies." Fortunately, not everyone thought this way, and realized that "nobodies" could actually make it by releasing one of the biggest rock albums of all time. Gee, Mick, I guess AFD was just a piece of trash just because people didn't know the band in 1987 eh? Mick should be pleased. Without 'Get in the Ring' no one would recognize his name. I sure as hell know I wouldn't.This is not GN'R disbanding, and then Axl coming back and getting people together and saying its the same as before. The other guys left the band, the band, although with one remaining member was still GN'R. New members were needed, they were brought in. It is what it is. The Beatles arguement is irrelevant. The beatles Disbanded. The other members did not just leave one guy remaining. They all greed that there would be no more beatles. Now for sure as we look back if Paul decided to stay and brought in other people im sure that everyone wouldnt have been happy. But it's a big difference between a band continuing with only one of its original members, and a band reforming with only one of them.If Paul had always stayed on using the beatles name, there would be much less of an issue...Hey someones comparing GN'R to the Beatles!But the thing is, there is a very big gap of mateirial between the old band and the new band. Its not like GNR was makeing albums as members gradualy left. The last GNR album had Paul Tobias in place of Izzy, and hes gone too.But Dizzy was there durring the UYI tours. And anyway, does it matter what they are called? We all know the truth anyway. The label means nothing. The music is what we want. And Axl as the frontman ofcourse.I could care less what the band is called honestly.True, but all of this "OMG GNR is back!" hype is bullshit. Where are these guys coming back from? Yes, please tell us what you're going to do to stop all of this bullshit hype? People say GN'R is back because they think Axl is GN'R, and he's back. Therefore, GN'R are back. It ain't difficult, pal. You just don't agree with it, but that's too bad for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Estranged Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 (edited) I don't know if their gigs are a disappointment (won't see Rose's Guns till Dublin) and I highly doubt that the show wasn't at least somewhat entertaining, but I will say this, that dipshit is completely right about this band not being GNR (I really couldn't give a fuck if you've heard it before so spare me the bitching ) and the Beatles comment is a perfect anology (a band is plural not individual and at no point were the original GnR axl's backing band, get over it ), but then he knew the line up, he shouldn't have gone thinking he was going to a GnR show, he should have been happy with the fact that he saw a great Axl & friends show, In the same way that I accept Im not going to see GnR but a really good band fronted by a great singer and I am looking forward to it . Edited May 31, 2006 by Mr Estranged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Flower Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Knock him all you want, but it's how a lot of people feel.It might be different if Axl was playing new songs from a new album ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Estranged Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 (edited) Knock him all you want, but it's how a lot of people feel.It might be different if Axl was playing new songs from a new album ...Im not knocking him for no other reason then I don't like Kerrang, also i accept what your saying (in that Im one of those people) but even after they release an album I still won't see this band as Gnr, I dont see them as Gnr not because of their inaction but because they are simply not the people who were GnR (well ok one of them is but you know what i mean ), should they release an album then I will consider them Rose's new project, on the same level as the Ju ju hounds or VR but not GnR (that ship as sailed, at least for the short term)wait, sorry just read some of the posts behind me, you weren't talking to me were you? sorry I need a coffee Edited May 31, 2006 by Mr Estranged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBruin66 Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 (edited) The way i feel it, GN'R was thisAxl - 50%Slash - 25%Izzy - 15%Duff - 5%Drummer - 5%Therefore as long as there is Axl... There is GN'R... Edited May 31, 2006 by BBruin66 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Flower Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 wait, sorry just read some of the posts behind me, you weren't talking to me were you? Nah, dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetness Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Yes, please tell us what you're going to do to stop all of this bullshit hype? People say GN'R is back because they think Axl is GN'R, and he's back. Therefore, GN'R are back. It ain't difficult, pal. You just don't agree with it, but that's too bad for you.Well, Ive always thought of GNR as a band, and not one person. But you are right, Axl is GNR... well now at least. What I dont get is, why is it too bad for me to have a different opinion than you? Saying something like "You just don't agree with it, but that's too bad for you", just shows me that youre pompous.Look, I like the new GNR, they arent half bad. I just think its weird to call them Guns N' Roses, and if you really dont like that I think that way you can kiss my ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Knock him all you want, but it's how a lot of people feel.It might be different if Axl was playing new songs from a new album ...Im not knocking him for no other reason then I don't like Kerrang,I dunno if he's even writing for Kerrang these days. He was writing for Classic Rock last I checked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.W.A.T. Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Mick Wall isn't even original with his comments/insults; didn't Matt Sorum say the exact same thing about how if Paul Mccartney solely started using the Beatles name no one would accept it a few interviews ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GET OFF AXLS BACK Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 You're always gonna have that side of things, as long as a reunion doesn't happen. Live with it, and don't let it consume you. Enjoy the band for what it is, not for what it isn't.Thats about the size of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Niveen Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 (edited) http://www.mickwall.com/blog/blog.php Meanwhile a French magazine has emailed to ask if I would like to write a Guns N' Roses story for them, about their latest gigs in New York, which I happen to know quite a lot about, having snuck through the backdoor. Was very disappointed they didn't play 'Get In The Ring' in my honour, but then was pretty disappointed by the whole thing, actually. But hey, it's not really Guns N' Roses, is it? Despite what the poor deluded bastards who scream otherwise say. I mean, if Paul McCartney got a bunch of nobodies together tomorrow and called it the Beatles, would it mean it was the Beatles? (Whoever they are...)I posted the Beatles example 10 days ago.If Paul McCartney hired Noel Gallagher and Lenny Kravitz on guitars and called it The Beatles there would be people to accept it ! Mick Wall is realistic. Edited May 31, 2006 by Alan Niveen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsnrosesrfreak Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 I'll just post the same as in HTGTH Mick Wall at KerrangBob Guccione Jr. at Spin,What you pissed off cuz your dad gets morepussy than you?Fuck youSuck my fuckin' dickDo we need to add anything else? no we dont!!(and was exactly did mick do to end up in a rant?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Niveen Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 (and was exactly did mick do to end up in a rant?)To say the TRUTH is probably enough to end up in an Axl's rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axls_Disillusion Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 please no one cares about Mick Wall. I wouldn't know who the fuck he is if he wasn't in GITR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucketmaster101 Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Hes a complete wanker, hes still sore about Get in the Ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Seal Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Hes a complete wanker, hes still sore about Get in the Ring.To the wrong person though.. After all GITR is Duff's song Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Estranged Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Knock him all you want, but it's how a lot of people feel.It might be different if Axl was playing new songs from a new album ...Im not knocking him for no other reason then I don't like Kerrang,I dunno if he's even writing for Kerrang these days. He was writing for Classic Rock last I checked.wow I'm outdatei think i'll just sit in the back for this one, looking intense with a chef's hat on :chef: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAlien Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 "I mean, if Paul McCartney got a bunch of nobodies together tomorrow and called it the Beatles, would it mean it was the Beatles?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Flower Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 To the wrong person though.. After all GITR is Duff's song Duff just came up with the chorus. The stupid rant was all Axl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 http://www.mickwall.com/blog/blog.php Meanwhile a French magazine has emailed to ask if I would like to write a Guns N' Roses story for them, about their latest gigs in New York, which I happen to know quite a lot about, having snuck through the backdoor.If you didn't like the band in the first place, why go out of your way to "sneak" in to any of their gigs? Monty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Seal Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 To the wrong person though.. After all GITR is Duff's song Duff just came up with the chorus. The stupid rant was all Axl.Axl: And Duff’s brought in one song - Duff said it all in one song- it’s called ‘Why do you look at me when you hate me?’ and it’s just bad-assed.http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/article...php?articleid=4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDRM Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 meh, hes a wanker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts