You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: what does Axl/GNR have to, to regain your interest 100%
Soothsayer is alot better than Nottingham Lace...holy shit, listening to it now.
Re: what does Axl/GNR have to, to regain your interest 100%
but I just can't understand how anybody could look at that 2002 lineup and say that they had the attitude, style, and presence of GnR.
I wasn't looking for the neither the attitude, style or presence of the former GNR when looking at the 2002 GNR. I saw a band ready to evolve into something else, with a cooperation between two people from freaky different backgrounds in Bucket and Axl, adding another interesting approach from Robin (though his live performances left much to be desired).
I wasn't LOOKING for the old band when watching the NEW band. I was looking for something different. That's why it fitted for me. Axl may have sounded pitched, but I prefer that to his raspy "will-not-last-too-long-before-voice-is-permanently-damaged" voice of 2010.
Fuck, if I want old GNR, I go for old GNR, not watching new GNR and looking for hints, looks and style of the former. What's the point with that?
I completely understand that. And that's why I said this:
I can see liking their own style, I can see liking the freak show even because it's different, but there is no way I can imagine anybody thinking the band was essentially the same as the original band.
I totally get how you feel even if I don't agree with that being a good thing. Russ isn't the only one that felt this way, so I'm not picking on him...I just don't understand what someone saw that made them think
found guys I viewed to be the attitude, style and presence of Guns N' Roses.
That is what I don't get.
Re: what does Axl/GNR have to, to regain your interest 100%
It would be nice to have a website loaded with proshot videos, interviews, pro recorded audio boots, and all the other brick-a-brack every other band on the planet offers their fans, whats so difficult?
Just call it "officialgunsnroses.com" or something if the other one has legal issues.
I'm a little fed up of having no other choice than looking at videos and pictures captured on other fans mobile phones. I have friends in Northern Ireland who are only casual fans and know next to nothing about the incarnation of GNR coming to Belfast and they ask me to give them links to music videos and concert videos, but I dont really bother because nothing out there imo is really high quality enough footage to give the band justice.
Re: what does Axl/GNR have to, to regain your interest 100%
It would be nice to have a website loaded with proshot videos, interviews, pro recorded audio boots, and all the other brick-a-brack every other band on the planet offers their fans, whats so difficult?
Just call it "officialgunsnroses.com" or something if the other one has legal issues.
I'm a little fed up of having no other choice than looking at videos and pictures captured on other fans mobile phones. I have friends in Northern Ireland who are only casual fans and know next to nothing about the incarnation of GNR coming to Belfast and they ask me to give them links to music videos and concert videos, but I dont really bother because nothing out there imo is really high quality enough footage to give the band justice.
Pipe dream of 2010,let me introduce you to two close friends of mine...
pipe dream of 2002 and pipe dream of 2006.
I'll step back and let you three get acquainted.
Re: what does Axl/GNR have to, to regain your interest 100%
]I totally get how you feel even if I don't agree with that being a good thing. Russ isn't the only one that felt this way, so I'm not picking on him...I just don't understand what someone saw that made them think
found guys I viewed to be the attitude, style and presence of Guns N' Roses.
That is what I don't get.
Fact of the matter is, the band called Guns N' Roses today represents a totally different set of views, values, and (up to a degree) different musical directions than the GNR which existed in '87, '91, etc. A new generation of fans of the music (new and old) discovers the band mainly through how it presents itself today, and obviously relate to it as an Axl show.
The attitude, style and presence quip is a bit complicated to me as well, as I personally feel one is dealing with two completely different animals, regardless which of the lineups is preferred. Had Slash and Duff stayed with the band, it would be easier to draw comparisons to the days gone past, as the core unit would still be the same.
Nowadays, I do find Axl to generally have more style than he once did, the presence is usually there... As for the attitude, well, let's not go to his tweets. Even so Buzz, just a friendly advice. This lineup (or any lineup post-96) will never meet your standards of GNR, simply because we're not dealing with a band you grew up with and learned to identify as Guns N' Roses.
The name still exists, a band records and tours underneath it, so the public conception is that GNR is still alive and well with Axl in the helm. They do get associated with the past and the efforts of other people, but that's what you get with brand names. Henry Ford made the Model T back in the day, but he wouldn't have dreamt his name would one day be on the hood of a Mustang. But both are Fords as such.
Even if performing artists are more people-centered than car manufacturers, the common Joe still remembers only two people from the original band, Axl and Slash. Today, Slash is gone and someone else is noodling. Unfortunate, but that is the case with many bands out there, who've established their reputations before the personnel swaps.
The real downer with this band is that it's so heavily Axl-centered in its outlook, there's simply no-one to stand up to what Slash once represented. Buckethead, like his image or not, made a great foil to both Axl and Slash, and played a mean guitar to boot. Had he stuck, the touring band would've had a whole lot more identity once Axl came adjusted with the middle-aged frontman robes.
By far and wide, GNR was viewed as a two-man show. If people would have Bucket to cling onto, it wouldn't be all about Axl, it would also be that strange guy who plays the Slash tunes in a different, yet affable fashion. Now we've got Ron, who (despite all his good graces) is still not Slash nor Bucket; not a larger-than-life guitar hero, but a regular guy who goes to work every night he goes on stage.
"Attitude, style and presence of Guns N' Roses."
I'll personally define that one with a ferocious frontman and an eye-catching guitar hero.
Re: what does Axl/GNR have to, to regain your interest 100%
Axl has been the draw for me all along. As I said before I didn't follow Guns at all from the mid 90's until their 2002 VMA appearance, so I really didn't know anything about who was in the band or what music they were working on (outside of "Oh My God"). But I was fully back on board after seeing that performance and was intrigued at Buckethead and Robin, etc. Yeah they looked like freaks, but that was part of the draw for me.
I was also very excited about the prospects of VR after GNR sort of disappeared for a bit. At the time it was the "next best thing" for me. 3 ex-members of GNR mixed with Scott Weiland, whom I was a fan of as well, and I could care less about Dave. Sorry Dave. But I loved Contraband. Once GNR resurfaced though, VR took a backseat.
Whatever that means, so be it. The problem is, people claiming others to be "Axl" fans and not "GNR" fans, and how THIS isn't GNR. If that's the way you want to view things, fine. But to me, and others, it appears highly unlikely that a reunion will occur anytime soon. I loved AFD, UYI 1 & 2. But I also love Chinese Democracy. So I see no reason to wallow in the past and wish for something that's so far-fetched. I'd rather focus on the present. Especially when the band is active and moving forward. It might be a different story if they were in one of their silent periods, but we're not there yet. So I don't see the point.
Re: what does Axl/GNR have to, to regain your interest 100%
Fact of the matter is, the band called Guns N' Roses today represents a totally different set of views, values, and (up to a degree) different musical directions than the GNR which existed in '87, '91, etc. A new generation of fans of the music (new and old) discovers the band mainly through how it presents itself today, and obviously relate to it as an Axl show.
The attitude, style and presence quip is a bit complicated to me as well, as I personally feel one is dealing with two completely different animals, regardless which of the lineups is preferred. Had Slash and Duff stayed with the band, it would be easier to draw comparisons to the days gone past, as the core unit would still be the same.
We essentially agree on this.
Nowadays, I do find Axl to generally have more style than he once did, the presence is usually there... As for the attitude, well, let's not go to his tweets.
Yes. Axl. Not GnR. Kinda proves my point...
Even so Buzz, just a friendly advice. This lineup (or any lineup post-96) will never meet your standards of GNR, simply because we're not dealing with a band you grew up with and learned to identify as Guns N' Roses.
Agreed. I said that already. I think I even said it as recently as one of the other current threads or maybe even this one.
The name still exists, a band records and tours underneath it, so the public conception is that GNR is still alive and well with Axl in the helm.
I disagree. I think the public perception is that GnR ceased to exist in 1993. If the public perception was that GnR is alive and well, we wouldn't be having 99% of the discussions that we're having.
They do get associated with the past and the efforts of other people, but that's what you get with brand names. Henry Ford made the Model T back in the day, but he wouldn't have dreamt his name would one day be on the hood of a Mustang. But both are Fords as such.
Even if performing artists are more people-centered than car manufacturers, the common Joe still remembers only two people from the original band, Axl and Slash. Today, Slash is gone and someone else is noodling. Unfortunate, but that is the case with many bands out there, who've established their reputations before the personnel swaps.
And GnR is a nostalgia act just like every other band that fits that profile.
The real downer with this band is that it's so heavily Axl-centered in its outlook, there's simply no-one to stand up to what Slash once represented. Buckethead, like his image or not, made a great foil to both Axl and Slash, and played a mean guitar to boot. Had he stuck, the touring band would've had a whole lot more identity once Axl came adjusted with the middle-aged frontman robes.
Maybe...once people got done laughing at them.
By far and wide, GNR was viewed as a two-man show. If people would have Bucket to cling onto, it wouldn't be all about Axl, it would also be that strange guy who plays the Slash tunes in a different, yet affable fashion. Now we've got Ron, who (despite all his good graces) is still not Slash nor Bucket; not a larger-than-life guitar hero, but a regular guy who goes to work every night he goes on stage.
"Attitude, style and presence of Guns N' Roses."
I'll personally define that one with a ferocious frontman and an eye-catching guitar hero.
Even if this was true for everybody, we're short 3/4 of that formula. We have 1/2 of what Axl used to be and no guitar hero (and I do love Ron the person and as a guitar player).
