Charles Manson Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 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 senseeveryones gotta start at the bottom...(*)Velvet Revolver... (even though in their former band they were playing 60,000+ stadiums and arenas)(*)Queen and Paul Rodgers... (not really queen but more or less, they used to fill out Wembley stadium. now they are playing to 15,000 tops)not really good examples, but they both have legendary players who have gone from playing huuuuuuge venues... only to be demoted to smaller places because of lack of interest (and being more or less new bands).Nu Guns on the other hand, are getting to play Rock in Rio, Download, Rock Am Ring etc. Not because of the fantastic new album, Not because of the fucking amazing line-up, but because of the name...Alot of people think its the original line-up because of the name. and then when the critics review these shows, they slaughter them. WHY? because in their minds, Axl slaughted GnR.this is why if you want this band to earn the respect they so rightfully deserve (they get my vote after download! ) a new name shouldve been number one priority! Instead of misleading and milking the name that they are using now...ahwell, no use crying over spilt milk now, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnEskimo Posted June 29, 2006 Author 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"thanks, this is so true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shootingstar 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? To correct u lawrence, it´s about 70-75%And yes Martina, 25-30% is much without an album! One quarter is much. Even if there was an album out by now. When CD is released we can expect one third appatite, one third UI and one third CD. And Patience... not a big difference from now really.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
November_rain Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 For fucks sake, are you people ever happy?If new GNR had 33 records and they played 90% of the songs of those records you would complain because you would miss the old tunes. When I go to a GNR concert apart from the new tunes I want to hear NR, SCOM,WTTJ...etc because I love those songs. The same happens with another bands, people want to hear the hits because they like them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martina Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 For fucks sake, are you people ever happy?If new GNR had 33 records and they played 90% of the songs of those records you would complain because you would miss the old tunes.nah,they would complain gnr had too much records out,and that most of songs sounded same.and about setlist being same as previous one,ofcourse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucketslash Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 thars why music choice tv is never that great, they play like, the crap songs off each album Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetness 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 permanentNo, it was a breakup. Bands are different from baby teeth in my opinion, especially one as great as Guns N' Roses. GNR was 5 people who made some of the best music of their time, they influenced thousands if not millions. Youre telling me that these great musicians can just be replaced like baby teeth? No way.I the understand analogy your trying to make, I just dont think its a good one in this case. Edited June 29, 2006 by sweetness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel1304 Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 The way i see it theres no new or old gnr there just GNR and thats 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 permanentNo, it was a breakup. Bands are different from baby teeth in my opinion, especially one as great as Guns N' Roses. GNR was 5 people who made some of the best music of their time, they influenced thousands if not millions. Youre telling me that these great musicians can just be replaced like baby teeth? No way.I the understand analogy your trying to make, I just dont think its a good one in this case.i'm not saying so much that they were replacedi'm justy saying like it or not, thats how it happennedwe'll dispute the break up later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 No man, GNR is GNR. The band out now is... well, you've read the press... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kick13 Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 New GNR is the best friggin cover band in the world but suck when it comes to their own original songs. Hey, if you like the demos/leaks, all the more power to you but I'm just not digging them. The songs are, at best decent compared to today's standards but when it comes to matching them up with AFD or UYI they just don't stand a chance. Sure people can say Axl is evolving but people usually evolve for the better, not for the worse. Just my opinion. Again, if you like the new stuff then all the more power to you, i just think the new stuff sucks monkey balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troublegun Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 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...except that 5 new songs out of a set with 19-20 songs is not 10% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tippin Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 New GNR is the best friggin cover band in the world but suck when it comes to their own original songs. Hey, if you like the demos/leaks, all the more power to you but I'm just not digging them. The songs are, at best decent compared to today's standards but when it comes to matching them up with AFD or UYI they just don't stand a chance. Sure people can say Axl is evolving but people usually evolve for the better, not for the worse. Just my opinion. Again, if you like the new stuff then all the more power to you, i just think the new stuff sucks monkey balls.I'll bet my left nut Chinese Democracy, when it arrives, will be a HUGE hit....But your entitled to your own opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts