I'm tired of the ragging on Robin and Co.

[Guest Apollo]

I was reading another post about the new members of the band and how come they stayed with Axl for so long, and a post about the new band just being hired guns, and one poster replied:

"""Why would they leave? They get a chance to take advantage of the legacy that someone else created to pad their bank accounts and further their own careers. They'd be nuts to leave!"""""

And it annoyed me.

Let's get real here. WTF are they supposed to do???

Are ALL bands that break up restricted from playing their old hits???

When DLR left Van Halen, does that mean that Eddie and Co. should never have played Jump or Panama again???

Did you get outraged when DLR sang Jump and Hot For Teacher on his tours??? Did you call out Stevie Vai for playing Eddie's guitar parts?????

Ozzy sings Black Sabbath songs, nobody bitches and moans. Nobody accuses his guitar players of living off the legacy of old Sabbath band members.

Hagar sang DLR songs.

When Mick Jagger left Rolling Stones, he played Rolling Stones songs. Nobody ripped him and his band apart.

CHris Cornell sang Soundgarden songs on his solo tour.

Plant sang Zep songs.

Coverdale sang Whitesnake songs.

I could go on.

THEY play the songs that they know the fans want to hear!!!!!!!!!

If Axl and new GnR came out and didn't play ANY old gnr songs . . . you haters would hate even more!!!! GnR plays the song they know the fans want to hear. Plain and simple. They are not just trying to make money off the old band's legacy. F*ck, even Vel Revolver plays old GnR songs.

And I know, the typical response to this post is gonna be "Ya, well those guys are different, because they didn't keep the name of the old band like Axl did."

Well you know what sir?

Let me just say this again, in case you haven't heard it for a while . . . . FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who cares what the name of the band is!

All you should care about is the MUSIC being produced.

The line-up on Illusions was different from the line-up on Appetite. Who cares.

I know who created Appetite. And I know who created Lies. And I know who created Illusions. And I will cherish those albums.

Won't you join me in being intelligent and mature enough to NOT LET who is playing with Axl now, have ANY EFFECT whatsoever on the legacy of the prior GnR catalog!

Axl could put out a polka album, and it WONT CHANGE the importance of the earlier albums ONE BIT sir!!!

[Estranged Reality]

When Mick Jagger left Rolling Stones, he played Rolling Stones songs. Nobody ripped him and his band apart.

CHris Cornell sang Soundgarden songs on his solo tour.

Plant sang Zep songs.

Coverdale sang Whitesnake songs.

I could go on.

No one would be criticizing Axl for singing these songs if he were touring under the name Axl Rose. He isn't. He's touring under Guns N' Roses.

And Cornell, Plant and all the others you could "go on" about don't dominate their setlists with material from old albums. Every GN'R show they play about 90% of the Appetite material.

I'm not complaining - I'm just explaining WHY the complainers complain. There's a BIG, big difference between what you're talking about and what Axl's doing.

It would be like if Cornell had fired everyone from Soundgarden in 1993, and come back in 2006 with an all-new set of people and touring as Soundgarden.

[Gunzen]

When DLR left Van Halen, does that mean that Eddie and Co. should never have played Jump or Panama again???

Noone should ever play "Jump" again. Elton John said that song is too gay.

When Mick Jagger left Rolling Stones, he played Rolling Stones songs. Nobody ripped him and his band apart.

CHris Cornell sang Soundgarden songs on his solo tour.

Plant sang Zep songs.

Coverdale sang Whitesnake songs.

I could go on.

No one would be criticizing Axl for singing these songs if he were touring under the name Axl Rose. He isn't. He's touring under Guns N' Roses.

And Cornell, Plant and all the others you could "go on" about don't dominate their setlists with material from old albums. Every GN'R show they play about 90% of the Appetite material.

I'm not complaining - I'm just explaining WHY the complainers complain. There's a BIG, big difference between what you're talking about and what Axl's doing.

It would be like if Cornell had fired everyone from Soundgarden in 1993, and come back in 2006 with an all-new set of people and touring as Soundgarden.

......and Soundgarden would still sound great cause for the most part it is 99% singer when it comes to guys like Cornell, Rose, Perry (Steve, not Stephen). Truely great lead singers can play with the James Lick High School Marching Band behind them and they would be great. Just the way it is. Slash, Duff etc, very good , but sorry Axl will go on forever w/out those guys. They need other great singers to go on. (See Slssh's Snake Pit, Juju Hounds etc).

Slash etc need another great singer to carry them, Axl just needs a venue. Chris cornell is great every band he goes to, no matter what the fuck he does. Axl is like him, or vice-versa. rock1

Edited December 27, 2006 by Gunzen

[Dead Flower]

Axl just needs a venue.

Yeah, that and the GnR name. Oh, and a setlist made up almost entirely of old material he created with another band in 1987.

Cornell's solo stuff was good, but he needed to team up with the remnants of a big-name band (which just happened to contain a contemporary guitar icon) before he got back into the mainstream spotlight. And, fwiw, I think Audioslave kinda suck.

Soundgarden were a great band because of the contributions of all members. Matt Cameron wrote the music for Limo Wreck, Mailman and Fresh Tendrils - three of my favourite Soundgarden tunes. Kim Thayil wrote Room A Thousand Years Wide. I could keep going. It was no one-man show.

Sounds like another great band I know. Y'know, the one where the rhythm guitarist was the best songwriter? The one where the lead guitarist helped define their sound with his signature riffs and solos? Hell, even the bass player wrote a sleaze-rock classic on their breakthrough album.

The funny thing is, I actually think Axl can make it on his own without those guys. I think he's capable of releasing a great new album with Finck, Stinson and whoever else is in the band these days. I think people will still go to his shows if he plays a lot more new material with just a few old classics mixed in.

Unfortunately, he refuses to even try.

[War Of The Roses]

Guns n Roses kick there asses thats why,

im sure people on van halens forums complain, like bout 2 people,

but weve been waiting for this for like 10 years, some people just arent happy

[D-GenerationX]

It amazes me that people get still get all worked up about the semantics of a name.

And I know I'd absolutely LOVE to see the reaction from people if Slash and Duff didn't sign away their rights (like complete idiots) and were able to call Velvet Revolver "Guns N Roses".

Because let's get real here. They would if they could. Its just conveinet for them to take some hocus pocus moral stand, knowing full well they can't legally use the name anyway.

[SERPICO]

No matter which way you look at it there hired guns. The only reason they've stuck around so long is their paycheck. They wouldn't be making anywhere near what they're making now.

[luvaxl4ever]

I was reading another post about the new members of the band and how come they stayed with Axl for so long, and a post about the new band just being hired guns, and one poster replied:

"""Why would they leave? They get a chance to take advantage of the legacy that someone else created to pad their bank accounts and further their own careers. They'd be nuts to leave!"""""

And it annoyed me.

Yep, that was my quote. And seriously, if THAT annoys you, that's sad. There are far more important things in the world to get upset about.

Edited December 27, 2006 by luvaxl4ever

[Lukinx]

People complain because there is no album, there are just live shows. So right now many critics feel like this is just Axl and a hired house band. As soon as the album drops these guys will be recognized by many more people and start earning the the ground to build the new GN'R on. The live shows just don't cause enough buzz for the guys to gain any reputation by, but the album will. Until then no one knows if it's even gonna come out and that makes people extra stingy and this is because we've already been dissapointed more than once with the promises of a release. So keep your hopes up, when the album drops the winds will change!

Look at it logically, if people still are doubting AXL ROSE, is it really that strange that the other guys in the band are getting slammed too?

Edited December 27, 2006 by Lukinx

[GeorgeGlass]

When DLR left Van Halen, does that mean that Eddie and Co. should never have played Jump or Panama again???

Noone should ever play "Jump" again. Elton John said that song is too gay.

When Mick Jagger left Rolling Stones, he played Rolling Stones songs. Nobody ripped him and his band apart.

CHris Cornell sang Soundgarden songs on his solo tour.

Plant sang Zep songs.

Coverdale sang Whitesnake songs.

I could go on.

No one would be criticizing Axl for singing these songs if he were touring under the name Axl Rose. He isn't. He's touring under Guns N' Roses.

And Cornell, Plant and all the others you could "go on" about don't dominate their setlists with material from old albums. Every GN'R show they play about 90% of the Appetite material.

I'm not complaining - I'm just explaining WHY the complainers complain. There's a BIG, big difference between what you're talking about and what Axl's doing.

It would be like if Cornell had fired everyone from Soundgarden in 1993, and come back in 2006 with an all-new set of people and touring as Soundgarden.

......and Soundgarden would still sound great cause for the most part it is 99% singer when it comes to guys like Cornell, Rose, Perry (Steve, not Stephen). Truely great lead singers can play with the James Lick High School Marching Band behind them and they would be great. Just the way it is. Slash, Duff etc, very good , but sorry Axl will go on forever w/out those guys. They need other great singers to go on. (See Slssh's Snake Pit, Juju Hounds etc).

Slash etc need another great singer to carry them, Axl just needs a venue. Chris cornell is great every band he goes to, no matter what the fuck he does. Axl is like him, or vice-versa. rock1

Yeah Axl could go on, but its no longer at the same level. It leaves much to be desired if you've ever seen the old band perform live. I've not heard to many people say this new band is as good or better than the old because frankly, they are not.

[D-GenerationX]

I for the life of me will never understand this.

Let's say Axl has this same new line-up. Plays the same AFD laden setlist.

Yet if he called it "Axl N' Friends"...suddenly, its all good?

Is the new band still not playing old material they had no part in creating?

The only way this hocus pocus "outrage" makes any sense is if you are seriously trying to convince me that people are going to these shows and are honest to God shocked Slash, Duff, et al are not there. Because anyone paying even a bare mimimum of atention knows that has been the case for some time.

[GeorgeGlass]

As soon as the album drops these guys will be recognized by many more people and start earning the the ground to build the new GN'R on...So keep your hopes up, when the album drops the winds will change!

I admire your optimism, but your statements simply aren't true. Not much is going to change the perception of these guys as hired guns touring with Axl. In fact, I think most people are nonplussed right now with what is going on in 'GNR'. The way for them to have mainstream success is to be identified as what they were and what put them on top. Guns N Roses have burned an image into the general public's mind that will never be taken away - that of Axl and Slash (primarily), with Duff, Izzy and Steven/Matt. What I think would have helped Axl a bit would have been to get 4 replacement musicians to make up another 5 person core then maybe people could draw a line. Now you have revolving guitarists, two drummers, two keyboardists...nobody knows what the fuck is going on.

[Axingn'r]

Lightning never hits the same place twice.

There's only one GNR. And they split up.

Edited December 27, 2006 by Axingn'r

[D-GenerationX]

Lightning never hits the same place twice.

There's only one GNR. And they split up.

And we move on.

Well...some of us do, I guess.

[Patience 4 Axl]

......and Soundgarden would still sound great cause for the most part it is 99% singer when it comes to guys like Cornell, Rose, Perry (Steve, not Stephen). Truely great lead singers can play with the James Lick High School Marching Band behind them and they would be great. Just the way it is.

99%?!?!

No, that's simply not true. GnR consistently earns a spot on almost every poll and countdown for their guitar riffs and solos. Axl didn't write the guitar parts, Slash did. And the new material just confirms that he can't write them. Slash's contribution to all their songs were just as important as Axl's lyrics and vocals. You're going to deny that the opening riff of SCOM is less important in that song than Axl's singing? The solos in NR, Nightrain, WTTJ, PC etc have less meaning than the vocals? Axl's singing AND Slash's guitar work is what seperated that band from all the others of their time, and what built their legacy. One would not have worked without the other. To attempt to discount this and give all the praise solely to Axl for his singing is just ludacris. If this was the case, why do people feel the need to praise Robin for his attempt to cover Slash's work. Axl does not need Robin, and Richard and Ron for that matter. Just stand up there and sing accapella.

[GeorgeGlass]

Let's say Axl has this same new line-up. Plays the same AFD laden setlist.

Yet if he called it "Axl N' Friends"...suddenly, its all good?

Is the new band still not playing old material they had no part in creating?

It certainly would help, because then he wouldn't be trying to pass this venture off as the Guns N' Roses we all came to know and love. And you're right they shouldn't be playing all the AFD material either because it just takes people back to an era that was. A real band, with new members, wanting to move forward, would want to get past that and play songs that HE'D/THEY'D now be recognized for. But when they get up there night after night and play AFD and UYI (which I love because I'll NEVER get tired of AXL performing those songs), people make the association to GNR, and they can't help but say, "this isn't Guns N Roses". I see the guitarist du jour playing the solo in Nighttrain in Worcester and I'm laughing my ass off thinking "this isn't right". Most people at the venues are paying to see Axl, not the rest of the band by the way.

He's replaced 4/5 of the band and still wants to call it 'Guns N Roses'? Smart marketing move? YES. Smart move for the fans and general public? NO, because most can see right through it save for the Axl-ites who will continue to say "he bought the name he can do whatever the fuck he wants". The man's a great performer there's no question, and I would pay to see him everytime, but few bands are the sum of their parts, 87-93 GNR is one of them.

I am simply giving a point of view not skewed by the "axl can do no wrong" school of thought. And yes I've seen the band live twice and just can't get into it, with their dopey stage moves, 10 musicians and not knowing who the hell is going to be in the band from year to year.

[Axingn'r]

Lightning never hits the same place twice.

There's only one GNR. And they split up.

And we move on.

Well...some of us do, I guess.

Yes, we move on, except Axl (he's still calling his band "GN'R" and he's mainly playing AFD songs).

Edited December 27, 2006 by Axingn'r

[moreblack]

I was reading another post about the new members of the band and how come they stayed with Axl for so long, and a post about the new band just being hired guns, and one poster replied:

"""Why would they leave? They get a chance to take advantage of the legacy that someone else created to pad their bank accounts and further their own careers. They'd be nuts to leave!"""""

And it annoyed me.

Yep, that was my quote. And seriously, if THAT annoys you, that's sad. There are far more important things in the world to get upset about.

No fucking kidding. So not everyone agrees with you that this is Nu band is GNR. Or that the new guys are Gods. Big deal.

I guess in some people's eyes, the singer is everything.

[D-GenerationX]

It certainly would help, because then he wouldn't be trying to pass this venture off as the Guns N' Roses we all came to know and love.

But as I said, this point only makes any sense if you have been on another planet for the last decade.

Its a straw man argument.

Anyone still willing to plunk down money for a concert in 2006 pretty much knows what's up.

[laz]

i was on a party yesterday and downloaded nightrain from rock am ring.( very good performance by the way) and told them listen to this!! and the first thing i hear is like "this is just axl with his cover band and guns is nothing without slash" "stupid braids" regular bullshit as always.. annoing as hell.

i just hope when guns release cd people will give them a chance before the judge..

[D-GenerationX]

i was on a party yesterday and downloaded nightrain from rock am ring.( very good performance by the way) and told them listen to this!! and the first thing i hear is like "this is just axl with his cover band and guns is nothing without slash" "stupid braids" regular bullshit as always.. annoing as hell.

i just hope when guns release cd people will give them a chance before the judge..

Well, lets be real here, that's not going to happen.

Here is what I expect will be the boilerplate review :

- its good, not great

- not worth the excessive wait

- these guys aren't Slash

That will be in EVERY review of this album. The only differences will be their severity. Some will calim its not worth the wait but still good, while other say its not worth it and who cares. Some will say the guitarists aren't Slash but are still good, other will say its not Slash so who cares.

Nothing you can do about that.

Edited December 27, 2006 by D-GenerationX

[laz]

yes nothing we could do abou it. just enjoy the cd:)

Edited December 27, 2006 by laz

[Axingn'r]

It certainly would help, because then he wouldn't be trying to pass this venture off as the Guns N' Roses we all came to know and love.

But as I said, this point only makes any sense if you have been on another planet for the last decade.

Its a straw man argument.

Anyone still willing to plunk down money for a concert in 2006 pretty much knows what's up.

Oh well, I wouldn't be so sure about that. I've heard that some promoters in Europe have been saying in their adverts that it was the original line-up. And Axl's camp have decided to use the font from the '90s to type "Guns N'Roses" on the t-shirts, the official site and on the posters advertising the shows....

Some casual fans don't even know who was in the band anyway : even if Axl wasn't singing, they wouldn't notice. That's depressing.

Edited December 27, 2006 by Axingn'r

[moreblack]

i was on a party yesterday and downloaded nightrain from rock am ring.( very good performance by the way) and told them listen to this!! and the first thing i hear is like "this is just axl with his cover band and guns is nothing without slash" "stupid braids" regular bullshit as always.. annoing as hell.

i just hope when guns release cd people will give them a chance before the judge..

Well, lets be real here, that's not going to happen.

Here is what I expect will be the boilerplate review :

- its good, not great

- not worth the excessive wait

- these guys aren't Slash

That will be in EVERY review of this album. The only differences will be their severity. Some will calim its not worth the wait but still good, while other say its not worth it and who cares. Some will say the guitarists aren't Slash but are still good, other will say its not Slash so who cares.

Nothing you can do about that.

In the end what do you guys want? A cd that critics love and adore, but you don't feel all that blown away by, or a cd that you love to bits regardless of how little it sells?

[GeorgeGlass]

It certainly would help, because then he wouldn't be trying to pass this venture off as the Guns N' Roses we all came to know and love.

Anyone still willing to plunk down money for a concert in 2006 pretty much knows what's up.

Yeah, that Axl's worth the $90 to see perform...the rest of the guys, I'm sure most people now could give a fuck.

...and I've been on this planet as recently as now...since Axl had resurfaced 4 years ago went back into hiding and resurfaced again this year, it isn't real clear as to what's happening for the general public. Most people are expecting maybe Slash & Co when they hear "GNR Live at..." Of course everyone here knows better, but you have to see it through the eyes of the non-die hard. If they resurfaced in '02 as Axl & Co - people would immediately know what's up...and probably not go to see them, hence Axl strategically buying the GNR name. As I said, it was a marketing 'must' in order for him to generate any sort of ticket sales and buzz (both of which have been lackluster, even with the GNR tag - whether you want to believe it or not he needs Slash to put himself back over the top).

Edited December 27, 2006 by GeorgeGlass