Would re-recording or re-doing old Videos be an insult to the old Gn’R?

[moreblack]

What they COULD do is to promote the upcoming Live DVD (I assume there is one on the way), is to release live recordings of this lineup doing the old songs. Footage from Rock In Rio, Download, Rock Am Ring of them doing any of the old songs, and add backstage and tour bus, hotel, and press footage.

So kind of like the Paradise City video from back in the day, but with this lineup.

[The Sandman]

Okay, what about Appetite re-recorded? Hell, would re-recording any album be an insult to the old Gn'R?

[moreblack]

Okay, what about Appetite re-recorded? Hell, would re-recording any album be an insult to the old Gn'R?

I'm sure if they re-recorded What's The Story Morning Glory?, or Never Mind The Bollocks, the old GNR wouldn't be offended.

[New Rose90]

Okay, what about Appetite re-recorded? Hell, would re-recording any album be an insult to the old Gn'R?

I think it would be a great idea for them to Pack Chinese Democracy with a re recorded appetite as an extra CD. It would also mark like the 20 anniversary of the original in a way. I would love it if they did that, to have studio versions of the current lineup playing AFD songs. It may be disrespectful but it would be great for the fans.

I also think that even when the current Gunners do have 2 or 3 singles out, then the old songs will still be shown on video form because they are classics. They just wouldnt stop showing them. Maybe a little less but not much.

Edited July 14, 2006 by New Rose90

[The Sandman]

Okay, what about Appetite re-recorded? Hell, would re-recording any album be an insult to the old Gn'R?

I'm sure if they re-recorded What's The Story Morning Glory?, or Never Mind The Bollocks, the old GNR wouldn't be offended.

Smartass

You know what I mean, if they re-recorded any Gn'R album, would the oldies be offended?

[Otis B Driftwood]

Okay, what about Appetite re-recorded? Hell, would re-recording any album be an insult to the old Gn'R?

I'm sure if they re-recorded What's The Story Morning Glory?, or Never Mind The Bollocks, the old GNR wouldn't be offended.

hahaha they can re-record American Idiot.

[Ridin' the Nightrain]

If they re-record anything of old GNR and release it for profit then it's an insult in my eyes.

Alright, play the songs live - I'm good with that, I like the fact they do. Re-recording AFD for practising? Fine and dandy.

But for any releases they must do 100% new material or they will lose my support.

[Zint]

interesting question

for me...yeah...most definitely an insult!

It would be on the same level as rerecording the original albums!

I don't mind the new band playing the classic songs live,I'm fine with that.

But no fucking around with the original band's archives!

There Was A Time...and place that is reserved for the original Guns onslaught,that is not meant to be fucked with.

[Draa]

Replying to Would re-recording or re-doing old Videos be an insult to the old Gn’R?

Replying -It would be an amazing demonstration of insanity and the end of the new gnr.

[Forsaken]

Who cares if it would be an insult to the old band. Like the title says, they are the OLD band. They decided to leave, fuck them.

[kever20]

Would re-recording or re-doing old Videos be an insult to the old Gn’R?

Hey Gunners,

When watching some of the classic older videos on Kerrang! that many people would not realise that people such as Slash, Duff or Izzy are no longer part of Guns N’ Roses as a group. In a time where commercials and promotion are vital to a bands success (although seemingly not with the lack of promotion compared to ticket sales of this tour…), music videos are inevitable for when the songs are released. What they may be? It is pure speculation, and for which songs too, no-one knows. The problem being, unlike most other bands where only a member may have changed – if that, this group has gone through more changes than William Shatner’s career has.

What I’m getting at is that many, including Uncle Axl, won’t want to be promoting the ‘old’ Gunners, instead the ‘new’ Gunners, and thus won’t want the old videos shown as much, if at all. Especially as he’s worked hard to put across to us the ‘new’ Gn’R through tours. It will leave people disappointed if they don’t see who they thought it should be in videos, or even on tour, and thus may lead him to re-record certain videos, or even produce new ones for songs that haven’t got them. The current video list stands at:

Welcome to the Jungle (original and Live Era)

It’s So Easy (banned and Live Era)

Sweet Child O’ Mine (original and Alternate)

Paradise City

Patience

You Could Be Mine

Don’t Cry (Original and Alt)

Live and Let Die

November Rain

Yesterdays

The Garden

Civil War

Dead Horse

Garden Of Eden

Estranged

Since I Don’t Have You

Of those, only 8 are played regularly on the current tour. This leaves a lot of leeway for videos of older songs, but with the new band. Songs such as ‘Mr.Brownstone’, ‘My Michelle’, ‘Rocket Queen’, ‘Out Ta Get Me’, ‘Think About You’, ‘Nightrain’ or even reduxes of the songs such as ‘You Could Be Mine’, or ‘Knockin’ On Heaven’s Door’ – songs that never made it onto the ‘Welcome To The Videos’ set due to copyright issues.

By doing this, this could allow mass promotion for the band through music channels, and acquaints them with the new band, through re-recorded versions of the old songs. We already know Appetite was re-recorded, and imagine new videos made from those, side by side with videos of ‘Chinese Democracy’, ‘Better’ and ‘I.R.S’. Whilst only speculative, it certainly provides a lot of scope, new videos or re-recordings. But if this was done, is it an insult to the old Gn’R? The people who actually wrote the songs for the most part? Is it unfair to remove their videos or replace them as the times change? Or start to phase them out as part of a mass promotional campaign?

Whilst I’m not for re-recording many videos, to redo the copyright bound videos and make new ones for those songs which do not have them could be a very good promotional exercise. However, is this unfair on the old gunners, or an indication of how times have changed?

Indeed, is putting out a re-recorded version of Appetite ‘wrong’? Is it unfair to re-record the work of artists, and re-release it using the new band? In essence, it would be a cover with changes (i.e. Nightrain solos, Sweet Child length, etc.), but would this be permissible? As fans of a group, would you want to see this happen – to signify the change in time and the group? Or would you see it as more of a desecration of a sacred object, that shouldn’t be touched by a group of musicians?

I’m throwing ideas out there, and wanting opinions, anyone willing to provide?

Sandman.

I think that that was an excellent post, my friend. I think that they could do it, and I don't see why not... I suppose I'd feel insulted if I had helped write and perform these great songs years ago, only to have them rerecorded by a group of people I'd never even heard of... But even though Axl sold the catalouge to Sanctuary, don't the members of the old partnership receive royalties?

[The Sandman]

Would re-recording or re-doing old Videos be an insult to the old Gn’R?

Hey Gunners,

When watching some of the classic older videos on Kerrang! that many people would not realise that people such as Slash, Duff or Izzy are no longer part of Guns N’ Roses as a group. In a time where commercials and promotion are vital to a bands success (although seemingly not with the lack of promotion compared to ticket sales of this tour…), music videos are inevitable for when the songs are released. What they may be? It is pure speculation, and for which songs too, no-one knows. The problem being, unlike most other bands where only a member may have changed – if that, this group has gone through more changes than William Shatner’s career has.

What I’m getting at is that many, including Uncle Axl, won’t want to be promoting the ‘old’ Gunners, instead the ‘new’ Gunners, and thus won’t want the old videos shown as much, if at all. Especially as he’s worked hard to put across to us the ‘new’ Gn’R through tours. It will leave people disappointed if they don’t see who they thought it should be in videos, or even on tour, and thus may lead him to re-record certain videos, or even produce new ones for songs that haven’t got them. The current video list stands at:

Welcome to the Jungle (original and Live Era)

It’s So Easy (banned and Live Era)

Sweet Child O’ Mine (original and Alternate)

Paradise City

Patience

You Could Be Mine

Don’t Cry (Original and Alt)

Live and Let Die

November Rain

Yesterdays

The Garden

Civil War

Dead Horse

Garden Of Eden

Estranged

Since I Don’t Have You

Of those, only 8 are played regularly on the current tour. This leaves a lot of leeway for videos of older songs, but with the new band. Songs such as ‘Mr.Brownstone’, ‘My Michelle’, ‘Rocket Queen’, ‘Out Ta Get Me’, ‘Think About You’, ‘Nightrain’ or even reduxes of the songs such as ‘You Could Be Mine’, or ‘Knockin’ On Heaven’s Door’ – songs that never made it onto the ‘Welcome To The Videos’ set due to copyright issues.

By doing this, this could allow mass promotion for the band through music channels, and acquaints them with the new band, through re-recorded versions of the old songs. We already know Appetite was re-recorded, and imagine new videos made from those, side by side with videos of ‘Chinese Democracy’, ‘Better’ and ‘I.R.S’. Whilst only speculative, it certainly provides a lot of scope, new videos or re-recordings. But if this was done, is it an insult to the old Gn’R? The people who actually wrote the songs for the most part? Is it unfair to remove their videos or replace them as the times change? Or start to phase them out as part of a mass promotional campaign?

Whilst I’m not for re-recording many videos, to redo the copyright bound videos and make new ones for those songs which do not have them could be a very good promotional exercise. However, is this unfair on the old gunners, or an indication of how times have changed?

Indeed, is putting out a re-recorded version of Appetite ‘wrong’? Is it unfair to re-record the work of artists, and re-release it using the new band? In essence, it would be a cover with changes (i.e. Nightrain solos, Sweet Child length, etc.), but would this be permissible? As fans of a group, would you want to see this happen – to signify the change in time and the group? Or would you see it as more of a desecration of a sacred object, that shouldn’t be touched by a group of musicians?

I’m throwing ideas out there, and wanting opinions, anyone willing to provide?

Sandman.

I think that that was an excellent post, my friend. I think that they could do it, and I don't see why not... I suppose I'd feel insulted if I had helped write and perform these great songs years ago, only to have them rerecorded by a group of people I'd never even heard of... But even though Axl sold the catalouge to Sanctuary, don't the members of the old partnership receive royalties?

Thank you Kever. Yes, they recieve certain royalties, however, Axl has licensing right, and thus could 're-license' Guns N' Roses to play or cover those songs. Failing that, he can parody them, where he need not confer with anyone else, and take home all the profit.

Edited July 15, 2006 by The Sandman

[Charles Manson]

Who cares if it would be an insult to the old band. Like the title says, they are the OLD band. They decided to leave, fuck them.

But wouldnt you rather have something new from this new band?

[The Sandman]

Who cares if it would be an insult to the old band. Like the title says, they are the OLD band. They decided to leave, fuck them.

But wouldnt you rather have something new from this new band?

In essence, it would be new, because the new band have new takes on each of the songs. Fine, not necesarily new lyrics, but new solos, or whatever.

[Charles Manson]

Who cares if it would be an insult to the old band. Like the title says, they are the OLD band. They decided to leave, fuck them.

But wouldnt you rather have something new from this new band?

In essence, it would be new, because the new band have new takes on each of the songs. Fine, not necesarily new lyrics, but new solos, or whatever.

I guess, but people wouldnt have been waiting all this time a re-recorded version of old material.

It would just make the band seem weak and incapable in the eyes of the fans and the general public.

[GET OFF AXLS BACK]

Bad idea i think, i want a new selection of video's that tell me about the new band and their time not redoing old guns time.

With the creative input this band could have awsome video's.

Im just not sure music vids are relevent now, channels like MTV are no longer about video's but more about shows.

[Dead Flower]

fuck them.

Right back at ya, champ.

[Charles Manson]

While some delusional people on this forum believe that most people think of Axl and Robin, this is definately not the case.

Who the hell thinks of Axl and Robin when GnR is mentioned?!

[Zint]

While some delusional people on this forum believe that most people think of Axl and Robin, this is definately not the case.

Who the hell thinks of Axl and Robin when GnR is mentioned?!

Axl and Robin...the Dynamic Duo

[sweetness]

Who cares if it would be an insult to the old band. Like the title says, they are the OLD band. They decided to leave, fuck them.

I care...

[oh my]

re-recording or re-doing old Videos are you serious??????

Why? So that guns would become a cover band of their past??????

P.S. I care too!!!!!!

[appetite for illusions]

While some delusional people on this forum believe that most people think of Axl and Robin, this is definately not the case.

Who the hell thinks of Axl and Robin when GnR is mentioned?!

I do, not to mention Fortus, Ron etc.

[ThosePillsITook]

Didn't Axl want to re record AFD with the new band a couple of years ago? That way he didn't have to pay the orig. royalties, and Axl says the old members are living off the GNR name....HA

[Almost Famous]

Didn't Axl want to re record AFD with the new band a couple of years ago? That way he didn't have to pay the orig. royalties, and Axl says the old members are living off the GNR name....HA

He didn't want to, he DID.

[KBear]

Who cares if it would be an insult to the old band. Like the title says, they are the OLD band. They decided to leave, fuck them.

But wouldnt you rather have something new from this new band?

In essence, it would be new, because the new band have new takes on each of the songs. Fine, not necesarily new lyrics, but new solos, or whatever.

I guess, but people wouldnt have been waiting all this time a re-recorded version of old material.

It would just make the band seem weak and incapable in the eyes of the fans and the general public.

There's that. There's also, is it even practical? Forget about if old GN'R would be offended or if fans would be offended (of course they would!).

First off, you can't re do the old videos because you wouldn't be able to get all the stations (not to mention the websites you can download them from) out there to stop playing them. Then there's Welcome to the Videos which you can't exactly make disappear. The old vids were great. Re doing them with an Axl Rose who's 20 years older and no Slash = not smart when the old stuff is so readily available to compare it to.

Re doing an entire album is a bad idea because the old albums are still out there. The new version will be compared to the old and guess what? The old cannot be topped. Not even the old band could top those versions if they tried. They are pretty much flawless because they are products of the times they were created in. The band would be releasing an inferior version of those albums and would be ridiculed.

The only thing they might be able to pull off is videos for songs that never had them. But they'd have to re-record those and that would likely be problematic.

Another point. This all could be a good idea if maybe Axl feels he hasn't been sued enough lately. It's been what now? Six months? Maybe he misses it? Because if he does any of this he'll be slapped with a lawsuit faster than you can say Bumblefoot.

The new band has the songs. We've heard enough demos and live songs to know this. Their image isn't as cool as the old band's was, but it is cool nonetheless, and in this day and age they are still better than all the bubble gum pop/punk acts going. They will do fine, they just need to release their own stuff.

Honestly, I think sales and shit like that are not really important. Axl Rose has nothing left to prove. He has already cemented his place in rock history even without this album. The most important thing is releasing a quality album that will have it's place in rock history. One that is largely successful in terms of sales but could be dismissed by critics and historians as forgettable (i.e. a pop album) is bad. One that flops initially in terms of sales but is critically acclaimed is just fine. GN'R was never about having hit songs (although they had plenty of them), they always had more integrity than that. There's no way this album can completely flop anyways.

Edited July 15, 2006 by KBear