AnEskimo Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 I would have to say that after all the success of "New" GnR, I believe that they have earned the title "Guns N' Roses". In looking at the full band pics, they look great together, and their live performances have all been amazing. We all need to move on from "Old/New GNR" and give Guns N' Roses the respect they deserve as a great band.Well I kept it short and sweet so everyone would read through the whole thing without getting bored half way through, so add on anything I forgot. Or flame me, I don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Jimmy Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 well, i think you are right, but at the same time we the origional GNR and new GNR are very different. They both rock, as we all know, but, espesially on a forum dedicated to GNR, you need to put distinction on which form of GNR you are talkin about. It helps w/ confusion as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawrence Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 i disagree' if axl wanted to progress from the old bandwhy use the same name?why are the shows 90% old material?dont sound like progressing to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baronbrothers Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 I would have to say that after all the success of "New" GnR, I believe that they have earned the title "Guns N' Roses". In looking at the full band pics, they look great together, and their live performances have all been amazing. We all need to move on from "Old/New GNR" and give Guns N' Roses the respect they deserve as a great band.Well I kept it short and sweet so everyone would read through the whole thing without getting bored half way through, so add on anything I forgot. Or flame me, I don't care.SPOT ON MATE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martina Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 why are the shows 90% old material?first there is no album.and 6 songs played live from cd is enaugh - for band who is touring without album.you dont want hear songs like NR,SCOM,KOHD,YCBM,WTTJ,PC,Patience etc. on gnr concert? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GET OFF AXLS BACK Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 Axl can't win, if he played mostly new songs people would moan that he was ignoring the past and letting fans down.Guns play a great set, play a great show and are a band, you don't like well tough shit cos he calls the shots not you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dikkepik Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 Indeed a nice set, but I'd like some more UYI material in there (civil war, right next door to hell, double talkin jive and estranged)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawrence Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 why are the shows 90% old material?first there is no album.and 6 songs played live from cd is enaugh - for band who is touring without album.you dont want hear songs like NR,SCOM,KOHD,YCBM,WTTJ,PC,Patience etc. on gnr concert? yes i do wanna hear them' but by the people who created them' not a cover band Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martina Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 yes i do wanna hear them' but by the people who created them' not a cover bandwell,if you want that,you've got no choice than watch dvds from 86-93. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axls Rocket Queen Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 Axl can't win, if he played mostly new songs people would moan that he was ignoring the past and letting fans down.Guns play a great set, play a great show and are a band, you don't like well tough shit cos he calls the shots not you Damn straight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawrence Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 yes i do wanna hear them' but by the people who created them' not a cover bandwell,if you want that,you've got no choice than watch dvds from 86-93.ok thats not a problem' btw why have i got to watch something to hear it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martina Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 btw why have i got to watch something to hear it?because audio n' video together is better than audio alone ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucketslash Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 ya know how we could do it, we could call the new gnr "Gn'r", and call the old gnr "Gn'F'n'R"i think it's a good compromise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Manson Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 i disagree' if axl wanted to progress from the old bandwhy use the same name?why are the shows 90% old material?dont sound like progressing to me While I'm now neutral about everything in the old GnR/Vr/nu GnR world, lawrence brings up some pretty good points... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucketslash Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 i gotta good reasonmaybe because it wasn't as if they were all fired at onceizzy was already gone, and then when gilby left, paul joinedwhen slash left, duff matt and axl found robinwhen duff and matt left, dave navarro, an old friend joined up, tommy stinson replaced duff, and (i forget his name) replaced mattthe drummer was replaced by brain, who brought bucket since dave leftchris pittman....idk he joined in wheneverthus we have the 2001 line upthen at the end of 2001 paul switched for richard2004 bucket quit2006 ron joinedno break up in there------------------------------------------------------------with all the bootleggers out there, why play the entire albumand it's not even 90% any more with the solos filling up the setlist(good move axl, critics have been proven wrong) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetness Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 i disagree' if axl wanted to progress from the old bandwhy use the same name?why are the shows 90% old material?dont sound like progressing to me Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucketslash Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 i disagree' if axl wanted to progress from the old bandwhy use the same name?why are the shows 90% old material?dont sound like progressing to me Exactlygreat job reading my post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetness Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 i disagree' if axl wanted to progress from the old bandwhy use the same name?why are the shows 90% old material?dont sound like progressing to me Exactlygreat job reading my post Thanks, but I disagree with your post. I dont care when the old members left, they are gone now and thats what matters. The band broke up, its simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucketslash Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 i disagree' if axl wanted to progress from the old bandwhy use the same name?why are the shows 90% old material?dont sound like progressing to me Exactlygreat job reading my post Thanks, but I disagree with your post. I dont care when the old members left, they are gone now and thats what matters. The band broke up, its simple as that.but the band never didthe old members just leftwhen a break up happens, it happens all at oncethis is more like replacing the baby teethsure you ate alot of food with the baby teeth, and you get a quarter when thier gone, but new ones grow into break up, they'd have to all have been ripped out at once and replaced with dentures, which they haven't, as this line up is pretty permanent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Manson Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 i disagree' if axl wanted to progress from the old bandwhy use the same name?why are the shows 90% old material?dont sound like progressing to me Exactlygreat job reading my post Thanks, but I disagree with your post. I dont care when the old members left, they are gone now and thats what matters. The band broke up, its simple as that.but the band never didthe old members just leftwhen a break up happens, it happens all at oncethis is more like replacing the baby teethsure you ate alot of food with the baby teeth, and you get a quarter when thier gone, but new ones grow into break up, they'd have to all have been ripped out at once and replaced with dentures, which they haven't, as this line up is pretty permanentIf a few albums had come out, then yeah. People wouldnt really have problem.but when these 'nu' guys are basically living on the name of other peoples past glories and have nothing to show for it (ATM), people tend to feel angry about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawrence Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 btw why have i got to watch something to hear it?because audio n' video together is better than audio alone ? well i'd rather just listen to the new band than watch themits my perogative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucketslash Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 i disagree' if axl wanted to progress from the old bandwhy use the same name?why are the shows 90% old material?dont sound like progressing to me Exactlygreat job reading my post Thanks, but I disagree with your post. I dont care when the old members left, they are gone now and thats what matters. The band broke up, its simple as that.but the band never didthe old members just leftwhen a break up happens, it happens all at oncethis is more like replacing the baby teethsure you ate alot of food with the baby teeth, and you get a quarter when thier gone, but new ones grow into break up, they'd have to all have been ripped out at once and replaced with dentures, which they haven't, as this line up is pretty permanentIf a few albums had come out, then yeah. People wouldnt really have problem.but when these 'nu' guys are basically living on the name of other peoples past glories and have nothing to show for it (ATM), people tend to feel angry about it...are they really living so much off the past glories of gnr?think about it, they have been seen on the vmas, 2 rock in rio festivals, are headlining festivals all over europe, have played on 4 of 6 continents, had a secret vma preformance, have the legend of chinese democracyand have yet to look anything like the old gnri could see if it was like kiss where the new members wear the old member's mae up and pretend like they are the old members on stage,but none of the gnr members have claimed to be better or equal to the old gnr members, and the closest to that was when axl complimented them saying "they've worked pretty fuckin hard to get where they are" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Manson Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 i disagree' if axl wanted to progress from the old bandwhy use the same name?why are the shows 90% old material?dont sound like progressing to me Exactlygreat job reading my post Thanks, but I disagree with your post. I dont care when the old members left, they are gone now and thats what matters. The band broke up, its simple as that.but the band never didthe old members just leftwhen a break up happens, it happens all at oncethis is more like replacing the baby teethsure you ate alot of food with the baby teeth, and you get a quarter when thier gone, but new ones grow into break up, they'd have to all have been ripped out at once and replaced with dentures, which they haven't, as this line up is pretty permanentIf a few albums had come out, then yeah. People wouldnt really have problem.but when these 'nu' guys are basically living on the name of other peoples past glories and have nothing to show for it (ATM), people tend to feel angry about it...are they really living so much off the past glories of gnr?think about it, they have been seen on the vmas, 2 rock in rio festivals, are headlining festivals all over europe, have played on 4 of 6 continents, had a secret vma preformance, have the legend of chinese democracyand have yet to look anything like the old gnri could see if it was like kiss where the new members wear the old member's mae up and pretend like they are the old members on stage,but none of the gnr members have claimed to be better or equal to the old gnr members, and the closest to that was when axl complimented them saying "they've worked pretty fuckin hard to get where they are"Yet there is still no album in sight... if they worked hard to get to rock in rio 01, im scared about how much harder they have to work to actually get an Album out... I know people here are loyal to there favourite band and all that, I am too. But It shouldnt take this long... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martina Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 btw why have i got to watch something to hear it?because audio n' video together is better than audio alone ? well i'd rather just listen to the new band than watch themits my perogativeI was thinkin on old band Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucketslash Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 (edited) i disagree' if axl wanted to progress from the old bandwhy use the same name?why are the shows 90% old material?dont sound like progressing to me Exactlygreat job reading my post Thanks, but I disagree with your post. I dont care when the old members left, they are gone now and thats what matters. The band broke up, its simple as that.but the band never didthe old members just leftwhen a break up happens, it happens all at oncethis is more like replacing the baby teethsure you ate alot of food with the baby teeth, and you get a quarter when thier gone, but new ones grow into break up, they'd have to all have been ripped out at once and replaced with dentures, which they haven't, as this line up is pretty permanentIf a few albums had come out, then yeah. People wouldnt really have problem.but when these 'nu' guys are basically living on the name of other peoples past glories and have nothing to show for it (ATM), people tend to feel angry about it...are they really living so much off the past glories of gnr?think about it, they have been seen on the vmas, 2 rock in rio festivals, are headlining festivals all over europe, have played on 4 of 6 continents, had a secret vma preformance, have the legend of chinese democracyand have yet to look anything like the old gnri could see if it was like kiss where the new members wear the old member's mae up and pretend like they are the old members on stage,but none of the gnr members have claimed to be better or equal to the old gnr members, and the closest to that was when axl complimented them saying "they've worked pretty fuckin hard to get where they are"Yet there is still no album in sight... if they worked hard to get to rock in rio 01, im scared about how much harder they have to work to actually get an Album out... I know people here are loyal to there favourite band and all that, I am too. But It shouldnt take this long...and i understand thatbut calling them by thier name over an album isn't so easyand i think it would be pretty hard to healine one of the biggest festivals in the wrorld with a realitively unknown line up and an unproven bandthey write gnr material, they play gnr songs, they are official members of gnr, and yet thier not called gnr? that makes no sense Edited June 29, 2006 by Bucketslash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts