You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Super-Speculative Reunion Thread.
It's not semantics. When is the last time we saw GnR? Over 2 years ago? Since then they lost the only key guy that was there through the whole mess not named Axl? There is no GnR.
Yeah the last tour was 2 years ago, but it's not even a year since the new album was released.
I'm sorry but given Axl continued GNR in the absence of Slash and Izzy then he can sure as hell do it in the absence of Robin. I like some of his parts, but it's not like Axl will need to hang up the mike without him.
Not to mention that we already know Robin had recorded parts for future releases that could be used post his depature anyway in the way bucket's work was. That's how modern GNR works. People come in - record their ideas into the overall songs - they are tinkered with in silent periods for years on end - then sometimes a tour happenes, or more recently, the new music is released.
Yes it's not the style of business conducted by the classic GNR, but that's not a new development. To my mind there is nothing to suggest that Axl will not re-surface in due course with another tour or new music. The brand doesn't have to only exist when it's in the public eye.
Re: Super-Speculative Reunion Thread.
Regarding the "There's no GNR" - that's just a semantics game at this point.
Sure, in one sence what GNR might mean to some is the original band, the AFD era, a bunch of dudes living together on the streets and all that entailed. We all know that lifestyle ended a long time ago for those guys.
For right or wrong, Axl felt that what he was doing was a continuation of what the name GNR ment to him. He says as much in his chat transcripts.
The new era of GNR is a different beast. But it exists. Song's arn't written by 5 guys living in the back of car trying to shell out a living, the street, but crafted overyears, with multiple players coming and going and each adding a little something.
I often see it listed as a negative that songs are from 2001 and so on. But so what...that just means this GNR runs differently from other bands. But where else can you have Bucket and Bumble on one record? Multiple drummers, multiple everything. It's definately unusual - but the end results I think worked out very cool.
The new-gnr has always had periods of silence and inactivity. But it continues...we got analbum last year, and I'm sure eventually something else will happen, a tour most likely. That it doesn't conform to your timetable or your vision of what constitutes a band doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
awesome post, man
Re: Super-Speculative Reunion Thread.
Axlin08 wrote:We haven't had GN'R since 1993.
I disagree based on the incredible shows I went to in 02 & 06. Oh and the newest GN'R album that I love.
It's not semantics. When is the last time we saw GnR? Over 2 years ago? Since then they lost the only key guy that was there through the whole mess not named Axl? There is no GnR.
The last time I saw GN'R was in 1993, whether it be Buenos Aires or some would argue those Izzy shows in Europe. Some would actually say Farm Aid 1990. I went to an amazing show in 2006 that was Axl Rose solo, and featured terrific performances, with a traditional Guns N' Roses attitude.
But GN'R it wasn't. I was willing to get on board with the GN'R 'reboot'. I really was. I thought that 2002 band was the one to do it, although in hind sight it seems like a pipe dream. But I really thought the 2002 band had the ability to really kind of reboot the concept, and kick all kinds of ass. Then it died, and that was it. Reboot failed. I never penciled in GNR's resurrection on it's tombstone, because it never really came out of the ashes. Axl made that decision. Not me, or you, or anyone else.
He also could've promoted his album in 2008, and chose not to. Chinese Democracy is an amazing solo effort from Axl Rose, and the DEFINITIVE album of all of the solo albums from the former GN'R band members. Sure it has a Guns N' Roses attitude (more so than VR's work), but it's nothing more than a solo effort with a big budget. That's all.
I respect the shit load of fun that Russ had in 2002 & 2006 (myself included), and how much he enjoys CD (I do too)... but i'm sorry... I don't count 10 years, three aborted tours (one of which was cancelled before it ever even started), one album, and a revolving door of band members, which at this point is a cover band of a cover band of the original band = not a band & not GN'R.
But hey, to each his own. Anybody out there that wants to believe GN'R still exists, and there's all kinds of buzz and positivity out there, feel free. 
Re: Super-Speculative Reunion Thread.
It's not semantics. When is the last time we saw GnR? Over 2 years ago? Since then they lost the only key guy that was there through the whole mess not named Axl? There is no GnR.
What? Dizzy's still around.
As long as Axl is still around and willing to have a go of it, there will always be a GNR. Will it be the same tour to tour, year to year, day to day? Probably not. We've come accustomed to a revolving door of members. Some leave, some come back, some new guys come in. But all the while it remains Guns N' Roses. I know plenty of people get up in arms about the "name" but that's been covered and it ain't going away. So accept it for what it is.
Re: Super-Speculative Reunion Thread.
Only internet geeks on these boards "accept it for what it is".
It's only GN'R on a business level, and in name.
Buzz is referring the worldly perception of Guns N' Roses as a band, and a musical artist in the "past tense", and the fact that nothing is on the horizon.
Not to speak for him, but I think it's safe to say, Axl doesn't = GN'R to him. Axl & Dizzy doesn't = GN'R.
He's in what we call 'the VAST majority' spanning the globe.
It's perfectly fine to support new Guns, and whatever future they might have. But at the same time, I don't quite understand why these boards get offended when someone believes that GN'R doesn't exist, and hasn't for a long time.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Super-Speculative Reunion Thread.
The last time I saw GN'R was in 1993, whether it be Buenos Aires or some would argue those Izzy shows in Europe. Some would actually say Farm Aid 1990. I went to an amazing show in 2006 that was Axl Rose solo, and featured terrific performances, with a traditional Guns N' Roses attitude.
But GN'R it wasn't. I
But that's why i'm calling it semantics.
To Axl it feels like GNR, the law would call it GNR on paper, and to many fans it is GNR.
To many other fans it isn't GNR, and that is only the AFD line up, or the UYI/TSI line ups. There are different schools of thought on the name issue.
Should Axl have done it? Well...he felt it was right for him. For me - I can see both sides - part of me thinks a new name would have been more respectful to the contributions of the old members, and easier to promote the new works with as it would avoid expectations of Slash and so on. But part of me listens to TWAT and This I Love and feels they suit the GNR brand just the way Novemember Rain and Estranged did before them. Your millage may vary.
But the point is...what's in a name? Whatever "it" is, it's always had these breaks of apparent inactivity, but it runs by having a variety of people contribute musical ideas over many years, it has a tour every 3 or 4 years or so it seems, and it put out a new album last year. Currently it's named GNR, and while i can understand that the name issue is sensitive to some fans, lets not pretend it's all said and done because Robin Fink left the band or because Axl's taken a break from public life again.
- the_real_jessica
- Rep: 22
Re: Super-Speculative Reunion Thread.
A reunion would bring a lot of money in and make fans happy but is this the right timing to even mention the past ? Slash only just lost his mother and I think it is the least of his worries .. Unless ax and slash can mend things in this time of grief
Re: Super-Speculative Reunion Thread.
A reunion would bring a lot of money in and make fans happy
i think it will cause more damaged than bringing with it anything worthwhile, honestly...the only way fans will be happy is if they get to see and experience the same magic they last saw in the early nineties...
and frankly, too much has happened in the last decade and a half for that to happen naturally...
it will be staged, it will be cold, and it will happen purely to fulfill some or other contractual obligation...and i don't want to see it that way...then they must not even contemplate that as a solution...
- elevendayempire
- Rep: 96
Re: Super-Speculative Reunion Thread.
The trouble is, Axl is fighting against an ingrained perception. The general public looks at a band, sees two "key members" and considers them to be the heart of the band. Most often, it's the frontman and the lead guitarist; Page and Plant, Brian and Freddie... Axl and Slash (though sometimes, as with the Chilis, it's different members - Kiedis and Flea, in their case).
You can change up the band as much as you like as long as you keep those two guys - witness Oasis, where Liam and Noel are the only members remaining from the original line-up. No-one misses the bassist or the drummer. But witness how Queen have struggled to convince anyone that they're Queen, without Freddie Mercury present.
If 2002 had worked out and Chinese Democracy had dropped then, with Axl on his 2006 form, he would've had a chance; MTV seemed to respond to Buckethead's iconic image, and Axl might've been able to make him supplant Slash as, if not "the GN'R guitarist", then at least one half of a similarly iconic pairing.
I guarantee, though, that Axl could take Fortus, Ferrer, Dizzy and Tommy out on tour, and if Slash was there, people would call it a GN'R reunion - even if Duff and Izzy weren't there. Likewise, Axl could take Duff, Izzy and Matt out on tour, and if the lead guitarist was Dave Navarro or Bumblefoot or whoever, the wider public wouldn't call it GN'R.
People are shallow.
Re: Super-Speculative Reunion Thread.
There lies the hypocracy of "general opinion". If Slash was there with Axl and a few session players behind them there would be no public outcry and faux outrage. Thats why I have no time for that attitude and it has little worth, cause I know the majority of complainers would spin on a dime if Slash was there no matter how shite the music.
Its all hot air to me, some people get an overwhelming sense of self importance and like nothing better than complaining about shit that has nothing to do with them. Expressing your opinion is one thing, but to bang on and on and on about it, in a quest to change the world, is just being a bit of a loser.
