Guns N Roses comeback not bad, but not nearly good enough.

[Rick]

i aint though,

i agree with the hat trick point

Yeah that's what I mean, you think those points are correct so you don't go to the gigs and support the bands. I don't understand why people say they agree with stuff like that - but spend time and money going anyway.

R.

[Axls_Disillusion]

this article is bullshit.

it'd be like moreblack going to the show. the bias is already there. this was written from the POV of someone who can't get over the old band. his opinion shouldn't even be regarded, this thread should be locked, or even deleted. no need to give this garbage the time of day. This dude knew damn well it wasn't the original lineup, so why even go there? fuckin moron.

[lawrence]

i aint though,

i agree with the hat trick point

Yeah that's what I mean, you think those points are correct so you don't go to the gigs and support the bands. I don't understand why people say they agree with stuff like that - but spend time and money going anyway.

R.

good point though, but i agree & i dont go, & will not go until slash comes back

[Ions]

Maybe old fans need to get over the fact that it's a new century for GNR.

This topic is so played out and asinine it's ridiculous.

Edited September 21, 2006 by Ions

[Axls_Disillusion]

old fans need to get with the times (the old fans who haven't, i'm an old fan who has), or create a board only for the old band so you can remenise of times past and sit around wishing $lashole never left.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Axls_Disillusion

[Turn_It_Up]

The comparisons haven't even started--wait until the album and reviews come out. Look at Audioslave--after 3 albums together EVERY article still strangles those guys with their past bands histories and saying AS doesn't measure up. Nearly every VR review compared the band in some way to GNR and probably will even with the next album. That may never end.

In this case, with Axl keeping the same name, the comparisons are unavoidable. Think about you as a writer going out to review your 1st new Guns show--wouldn't you naturally draw comparisons?

Edited September 22, 2006 by Turn_It_Up

[Axls_Disillusion]

this dude had this review pretty much written before he even saw the show, thats the problem.

if you go to a show, review the fucking show. dont spend the entire review talking about the old band.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Axls_Disillusion

[potbreath]

How can he not talk about the old band when they mostly play the old band's songs?

The guy is right for the most part, except I seem to remember a few windmills from Izzy.

And in case Axl read this shit, I'm also taking the opportunity to say QUIT PLAYING THE SAME TWO COVER SONGS EVERY SHOW!!!!!!!!!!

The review says KOHD was a lowpoint.

[Axls_Disillusion]

How can he not talk about the old band when they mostly play the old band's songs?

The guy is right for the most part, except I seem to remember a few windmills from Izzy.

And in case Axl read this shit, I'm also taking the opportunity to say QUIT PLAYING THE SAME TWO COVER SONGS EVERY SHOW!!!!!!!!!!

The review says KOHD was a lowpoint.

because its not the old members up there playing the songs. its about these guys now. Its not Tommy's fault he replaced Duff and that Duff chose to leave the band. Duff has nothing to do with what went on in SF last night so why even bring him or Slash, or even Izzy into it unless Axl specifically said something about one of these guys?

this guy has no fucking clue, he's just some disgruntled fan of the ex-members trying to spread his ignorant opinion on Guns N Roses. he would have been better off staying the fuck home and watching his use your illusions DVDs.

Tony Hicks is the Times' pop music critic. Reach him at 925-952-2678 or thicks@cctimes.com.

i say we flood his inbox with hate mail

[Patience 4 Axl]

This guy just scored a hat-trick!

But you've made the effort and spent a certain of money going to see them twice. Correct?

R.

Correct.

First of all, not trying to sound like a bitch, but the money is not an issue for me and doesn't factor into this at all.

The first show was in NYC, it cost me the price of a ticket, not a big deal. I would have probably spent more money that night going to a club. I was going to go to the last show, but I had other plans that were more important to me and decided not to break.

The second time was Vegas, a week after my birthday. I went with my friend as part of my B-Day celebration and spent 4 days in VEGAS, the concert took maybe 6 hours of that time. If the show was in buttfuck Kentucky, no I wouldn't have bothered to go.

Some people don't seem to understand that being a fan is not a black or white issue, there's a lot of gray matter in between. Wanting to go see Axl perform is ALOT different than agreeing with decisions he has made regarding this band. Thinking he's still an amazing frontman is ALOT different than thinking this is an amazing band.

I agree with this review, and I support the band the best way I can. I buy the tickets, I buy drinks at the bar and then I buy some merchandise. Other people wish to show their support by praising everything he does on an internet forum. I prefer my way, at least I don't feel like I'm compromising my beliefs. Money is one thing, integrity is something else.

[Axls_Disillusion]

but would you have went to vegas if not for GNR being there? wuld you have went to vegas to see VR? oh wait they were at the joint in July. not that i believe you need a reason to go to vegas. I go there several times a year. but the concerts was what made us all go to vegas last weekend.

you love this band, admit it

[Patience 4 Axl]

but would you have went to vegas if not for GNR being there? wuld you have went to vegas to see VR? oh wait they were at the joint in July. not that i believe you need a reason to go to vegas. I go there several times a year. but the concerts was what made us all go to vegas last weekend.

you love this band, admit it

I saw VR 3 times last year. Once was in Atlantic City and that's like a 4 hour drive for me. No, I wouldn't have trekked to Vegas just to see them for a 4th time, but if it was for a 1st or 2nd time, yeah, definitely.

My original plans was to go to the Bahamas for my B-day, but then the Vegas thing came up. Getting the opportunitiy to see Axl in a place like The Joint swayed my decision. But like I said, if they were playing just about anywhere else in the country, with a few exceptions, I probably would not have gone.

Listen, no matter what you think, I've always said I am an Axl "the artist" fan. I love his stage presence, his performance as a frontman, the lyrics to his songs etc. Love this band? Not yet. Maybe someday, if they give me something to love.

[Mars]

This guy just scored a hat-trick!

But you've made the effort and spent a certain of money going to see them twice. Correct?

R.

The second time was Vegas, a week after my birthday. I went with my friend as part of my B-Day celebration and spent 4 days in VEGAS, the concert took maybe 6 hours of that time.

Same here!

[Revelation]

Maybe old fans need to get over the fact that it's a new century for GNR. But until Rose and his new crew can forge an identity with a new record one of these years, Guns N' Roses won't be able to escape the shadow of its former greatness.

he's right. GNR (not Axl) needs to move on and do the album, not old songs. i loved the concert i went to, but GNR mentioned fuck all about Chinese Democracy. in 01/02 GNR was in the Chinese Democracy theme. Axl talked about how this inspired him to write this.

[artfromtex]

i aint though,

i agree with the hat trick point

Yeah that's what I mean, you think those points are correct so you don't go to the gigs and support the bands. I don't understand why people say they agree with stuff like that - but spend time and money going anyway.

R.

because we're all huge Axl fans. some people love the new band, some hate 'em, and some are apathetic like me (at least until i hear an album from these guys), but we all love Axl and want to see/support him.

[mr.drummin]

Blabbermouth.com

Just an article/review.

[Guest cherry_bomb]

wank.

anyway, only his opinion. it aint fact thats for sure.

[DelJames]

article quoted so you don't have to click

Guns N' Roses comeback not bad, but not nearly good enough

By Tony Hicks

CONTRA COSTA TIMES

Axl Rose has a lot to make up for. How he's going to do it is still a mystery, even after seeing the singer and his band, Gun N' Roses, at the Warfield in San Francisco Wednesday night.

If you don't want to hear comparisons to the old GNR, stop reading now. That's what's going to happen when a one guy hijacks the name of a legendary band, doesn't tour or make records for a decade, then comes back resting squarely on the deeds of years past.

Rose has hired a stage full of musicians to play under the moniker that so many people still know and love. No Slash to play guitar anymore? No problem. Rose hired three great players who look and sound like superstars -- though three was probably a bit of overkill.

, leading one to the obvious conclusion as to the identifiable sound and skill level of the old guys.

No Duff on bass? No problem. Rose hires Tommy Stinson, the bassist from the Replacements, one of the greatest alt-rock bands to ever grace the planet.

No Matt Sorum on drums? Rose gets Brian "Brain" Mantia, the excellent drummer of the Bay Area's own Primus.

That's a lot of credibility with which Rose has armed himself to take Guns N' Roses into its new phase. Well, at least the touring version of the new phase. We're still waiting (more than a decade) for the release of GNR's infamously oft-delayed "Chinese Democracy" record.

So the question is this: What was Rose trying to accomplish Wednesday night? Is it truly a new Guns N' Roses he's shaping, or is he trying to replicate the feats of the old band while nudging the current lineup into new territory?

It wasn't clear. Rose may not realize that without a new record, and playing with an ever-shifting line-up of non-household names, fans can only judge the new GNR on the old GNR. As far as that goes, they sounded fine. They played all the old stuff during a late-running set that, while a nice trip down memory lane, still fell short of expectations. That's what happens when a legendary band lets four out of five original members leave and waits more than a decade to do anything.

While Rose is still a dynamic frontman with a unique voice, so much of GNR used to depend on the laid-back coolness-that-could-explode-at-anytime vibe of the former members. It's hard to even call the new GNR anything but an Axl Rose solo band, featuring some nice backing players.

Looking better and more lively than what he's shown on scarce TV appearances in the past few years, Rose himself fought through sound problems to attack the stage like the Axl of old.

From opener "Welcome to the Jungle," through "It's So Easy," "Mr. Brownstone," "Live and Let Die," "Sweet Child O' Mine," and "You Could be Mine," everything sounded good and looked good, except for a couple of minor hiccups on "It's So Easy." At least, everything was as right and good as possible with so many unidentifiable faces on stage.

That's the thing -- guitarists Robin Finck, Ron Thai and Richard Fortis are all very good players (though we could've done without three guitar soloists taking up so much of a 21/2-hour set). All three try damn hard, running about, striking the right rock poses, sneering ... all the standard stuff from Rockstar 101. But that in itself was strange, as GNR never had to try so hard. The new guys are doing their best, but when it comes down to it, they painfully lack by comparison. It takes three guys bashing about to equal the absolute coolness of Slash and Izzy, who never had to resort to punching strings and doing windmills to make a point.

The few new songs scattered about the set were short of memorable, lacking the band's former and very-underrated natural groove. Some songs dragged ("Knocking on Heaven's Door,") and some were appropriately epic, like "November Rain," though Slash was dully missed. The crowd didn't seem to care who was up there playing under the GNR banner, with monstrous sing-alongs all night, especially during "Patience."

Maybe old fans need to get over the fact that it's a new century for GNR. But until Rose and his new crew can forge an identity with a new record one of these years, Guns N' Roses won't be able to escape the shadow of its former greatness.

This guy has hit the nail right on the head!

I was at the show and despite trying my hardest not to get too excited coz 'it's not really GN'R' (something that I truely believe and don't give a shit what anybody else thinks) I couldn't and my excitement was not wasted as the show rocked. It sucked that they came on so late and I fully appreciate why people get pissed off (I'm sure there must be some sort of way ropund this never ending argument and I'm also sure that most people should know what to expect at a GN'R show by now) but hey, I was on vacation so I didn't care and when GN'R came on the place mental mental.

The new band sound great but it doesn't matter how good they sound, GN'R was never about sounding perfect live, they were about the atmosphere, the grove of the music, the character of and chemisty between the band members and the spontanaity. As such, it doesn't matter how much Axl refers to them as GN'R they will only ever be hired hands to the majority of fans and will never be as cool as the original guys (be it the original 5 or UYI 6).

Great show though anyway, but in my mind I saw Axl Rose and his band playing a show largely made up of classic GN'R songs.

[shootingstar]

Here we go again....

Old Band vs. New Band, round 10,560

The guy explains in the 4th sentence why there are comparisons, and I think he makes a valid point.

Anyway, the review is pretty accurate. It's not really about Slash not being there, or Duff or Izzy, it's about the guys who ARE there.

The 4th sentence give people a reason to compare, but it´s still a individual choice to do that.

You find reasons to question EVERYTHING if you search for it. And it´s pretty obvious why people choose to do that. Opinions don´t have to be valid. My opinion is that these new members have far more charisma then IZZY. Now he looks more like a rich retired farmer who have been beemed to that stage with a guitar in his hand. It doesn´t work for him anymore just standing there and automaticly be considered as cool.

I like Izzy, but I try to do a fair comparison. I compare current Izzy with current members. People seems to forget that people change. If Izzy would still be in the band we would NOT have an Izzy as he was 20 years ago. We wouldn´t either have a drunk Duff playing sloppy in a charming way. And a reunion wouldn´t make them any younger. Please at least have that in consideration before u start comparing.

EDIT* A funny thing happened to me when i showed a youtube clip from a gig to afriend of mine. He is that cind of "want a reunion" -guy but don´t flowing around on boards keeping himself updated. When he saw Izzy in picture he asked me who the hell that was and told me that he looked like his grandpa. As I am well awared of his "interests" I didn´t told him at first and just played along..He continued: "Fuck Axl! Now he hire grandpas and why the hell even four guitarists!?"

THEN I just have to tell some facts. So opinions are VERY subjective in many different ways.

Edited November 30, 2006 by shootingstar