You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: New GNR vs old GNR/ GNR vs Velvet Revolver thread
war wrote:russtcb wrote:My point is that if you played them for someone and told them it was the old band they feel differently about them.
i agree 100 percent. i'd say atleast 75 percent of the negative feedback comes from old timers and 99 percent of those old timers know that it is a new band before they even hear the leaks and so they rip them immediately. the music isn't getting a fair chance and isn't gonna get one when the album is released. hopefully, the album will replace the lost fans with new ones.
But why tell them its the old band? doesnt that defeat the whole purpose of haveing a new band and letting them forge their own identity? its amazing that a few of the most stalwart fans of the new band would even think of doing that...people should know who are on the tracks so their merits can stand on their own
Acquiesce wrote:My point was simply that you can't discredit Slash's soloing on NR by saying that anyone can solo on that song and it would still be great. I personally don't agree with that because I believe Slash's soloing is what makes that song so epic. It wasn't meant to discredit Axl or the new band. Some people are way too sensitive.
this is a fantastic post acquiesce...and that is my point too...war you started that train of thought and its incredibly disrespectful to slash...and a discredit to how amazing the material is that slash did while in guns n roses....two of the songs which most peopel credit solely too axl some how you seem to forget that Axl was extremely grateful that Slash was able to come up with such a great cap to some of his most personal songs...and axl says as much in the liner notes of UYI's and he says it also in an interview for the making fucking videos trilogy
Because once again, that's not the point that's trying to be proven. The new band will stand on their own, because other than playing GN'R classics live, Axl has made an extreme point to never associate the new era to the old era, past the name. If that were the case, Axl would've just went and got some good GN'R tribute band guitarist to take over Slash's role. He didn't. He tried to re-invent the band.
But how do new band fans ever 100% judge a negative review on the band and their music, as the gospel? Who do we believe? How can we believe? When 9 times out of 10, if I were to take ANY new GN'R song, tell someone on the street it's old GN'R, and they'd foam all over it. But if I tell them it's new GN'R, they'd spit venom of hate against it. If I tell them it's a new band on the scene, they'd most likely be neutral to positive (which has been the case in the last few years).
The old vs. new argument is tired, I agree, but the old fans have to see the new fans side of the argument. It's tough to believe critics and old fans alike, when WE know that if Slash were to replace Robin tomorrow, suddenly the new band would be validated... and that's simply not fair to anyone involved in Guns from 1997/98 to the present.
Re: New GNR vs old GNR/ GNR vs Velvet Revolver thread
Good to have this thread,all versions of the band were/are great in their own way.
Re: New GNR vs old GNR/ GNR vs Velvet Revolver thread
monkeychow, I completely agree with your post.
Wow, Acquiesce, you certainly are seeing something I don't if you think people with negative reactions get shouted down. Negative is the name of the game here. It's embraced and worn as a badge of honor.
I understand what you mean. There is a negativity here about how the whole CD saga has been handled over the years (and rightfully so IMO), but I'm talking about the reaction to the songs which is a different beast. I would say the reaction to the actual music is very positive on the whole, but when there is a negative reaction that person is written off as someone who is biased because they live in the past.
But how do new band fans ever 100% judge a negative review on the band and their music, as the gospel? Who do we believe? How can we believe? When 9 times out of 10, if I were to take ANY new GN'R song, tell someone on the street it's old GN'R, and they'd foam all over it. But if I tell them it's new GN'R, they'd spit venom of hate against it. If I tell them it's a new band on the scene, they'd most likely be neutral to positive (which has been the case in the last few years).
The old vs. new argument is tired, I agree, but the old fans have to see the new fans side of the argument. It's tough to believe critics and old fans alike, when WE know that if Slash were to replace Robin tomorrow, suddenly the new band would be validated... and that's simply not fair to anyone involved in Guns from 1997/98 to the present.
This argument is silly. This is your supposition. There is no fact based in your statement. I could easily turn it around and say that if Axl was not associated with these songs that 9 out of 10 of the fans that currently praise the songs wouldn't be foaming at the mouth over these songs and comparing them to the Illusions and GNR classics. This type of argument doesn't prove a thing except how arrogant and biased you are to think the world would agree with you unless they are biased.
I can't judge the album as a whole since we obviously don't have the final version, but so far I think the material is good, but unspectacular. So far from what we've heard CD is a decent album, but it's nothing groundbreaking and it isn't a classic. So I don't know why it is so shocking to some that it's not going to be everyone's cup of tea. I do think it is a respectable follow up to the Illusions, BTW.
Re: New GNR vs old GNR/ GNR vs Velvet Revolver thread
Again, it's you guys bringing up Slash. I've never seen anybody that prefers the old band say that the songs would be great if Slash played on them. I've seen people say that they'd like to see what he could do on the songs, but that is 2 different things.
I've actually seen a pretty common theme regarding the new material. Over-produced, too much going on, too many layers, etc. Why don't the defenders of the new band ever address the real issues with the songs instead of making some up? Do you want to know why people want to hear what Slash would come up with? See the bolded section above...those weren't issues on most of the music Slash was on in GnR and he managed to overcome it and shine when it was an issue.
So instead of doing things to pick fights with the huge number of GnR fans that love Slash, why don't you actually address the issues with the new songs instead. You're never going to get away from the old vs new debate no matter what you do as long as this is referred to as GnR. Get over it and find good things to say about your version of GnR instead of attacking those that feel differently.
Re: New GNR vs old GNR/ GNR vs Velvet Revolver thread
The world is biased. My time on the internet over the past 10 years, countless media articles, concert experience, and YES, even discussions with GNR's band members and associates have led me to this assessment.
LOL - just what we need...another insider. Wonderful.
Re: New GNR vs old GNR/ GNR vs Velvet Revolver thread
The world is biased. My time on the internet over the past 10 years, countless media articles, concert experience, and YES, even discussions with GNR's band members and associates have led me to this assessment.
Consider it backed up. Unless you just weren't clear and you meant reading these conversations.
Re: New GNR vs old GNR/ GNR vs Velvet Revolver thread
war wrote:russtcb wrote:My point is that if you played them for someone and told them it was the old band they feel differently about them.
i agree 100 percent. i'd say atleast 75 percent of the negative feedback comes from old timers and 99 percent of those old timers know that it is a new band before they even hear the leaks and so they rip them immediately. the music isn't getting a fair chance and isn't gonna get one when the album is released. hopefully, the album will replace the lost fans with new ones.
But why tell them its the old band? doesnt that defeat the whole purpose of haveing a new band and letting them forge their own identity? its amazing that a few of the most stalwart fans of the new band would even think of doing that...people should know who are on the tracks so their merits can stand on their own
oofda
this has gotten so out of hand and misconstrued again. certain people are juding new gnr not by it's music alone but with bitterness because of them being called gnr when it is not the same members that they fell in love with. we are not talking about depriving NEW GNR of due credit by lying about who is in the band when the music is sampled to a new and potential fan. we are talking about how the new music is not getting judged fairly when you do tell the truth. certain old timers immediately discredit the music becuase it is not izzy and slash but, hypothetically speaking, if they did not know the "gnr" they would be about to listen to included a completely different set of musicians than their good old boys they would be more willing to give a song like BETTER an honest listen instead of immediately calling it crap.
