Here Today... Gone To Hell!

I'm talking about live performance, and please only people who have seen both GNR in 2006 and pre-1994.

I am very curious to see the results.

I choose...










DEAD HORSE!!!

ah sorry, just realized lol.

No prob, welcome to the board  : ok:

I was looking through dead horse and i could not find anything EXACTLY on New or Old GNR, just threads like which guitarist or drummer was better, I tryed the search button, didnt really get anything useful from it though.

Theres a new gnr?  ???

Start this topic there... Its the appropriate section for the subject

New Guns N' Roses? What is it?
I know a group called Guns N' Roses with some different members after the pre-94 members left.

New  :no:

If anything, besides Guns N' Roses, they're the current band, the band

Don't bust balls about the new v. current thing. New is shorter to type, and clearly u all knew what he meant, even if you won't admit it.

How do you know jupa's a "he"?

Yes. How do you know jupa's a he?

2006 lineup all the way

pre-1994, but mostly because I think 3 guitars is overkill.

The GN'R that was out there last summer.

Real mature guys.  I aploygize for adding the three letter word new in.  I didn't do that because I have something against the "current" lineup of GNR, infact there awesome and I've seen them twice, would have more but cant spend that much on concerts lol.  And I'm a he if you were curious.

that made me laugh :rofl:

I choose GN'R .   ;)



/bringbackadler

I saw two spectacular shows during the UYI era, and one at the Hammerstein last year.  It's a tough call to make, seeing the band at the height of their glory days, and staging a spectacular comeback years later.  Me, I'm pretty happy with what we have now, and the shows that are currently being played.  Here's to the quick release of CD...   :beer:

This current lineup sounds 1000 times better than any of the previous.

That's what my heart and my ears tell me.

the new band is more ok to be together then the old band

im sure there were times when slash and duff wanted to walk out, and couldnt, because of the money that it would have cost

time to get some more ears  ;D

no.

If you can talk without envolving any nostalgia, I think we all have to admit that this current lineup sounds (live) way better than any of the previous.

You may prefer Slash than Finck. You may think that Adler was more likeable than Brain. You can think that Duff used to look cooler than Tommy. You can think that, without the old guys, now the magic is lost. But as a whole band, this one is notably better and more skillful/talented than any of the previous lineups.

I know its hard to admit this for a hard die fan that grown up listening to the old band. But this band (hopefully) sounds a lot better. This is something that makes me very happy, because I dont like to live in the past. I'm really proud that my favourite band sounds this good.

agreed.   it is undeniable that the current lineup plays most of the old material better than any other lineup.     :beer:

Personally I dont think it sounds better than the old band because theres not a lot of soul, and to me thats far more important than technical proficiency.

And for those that say they can play the songs better, well there are 3 guitarists. They didnt need that in the old days. Plus theres always the point that these guys didnt even write the songs that they play.

that has absolutely fuck all to do with how good it sounds live.  : ok:

and


Partly correct, IMHO, I don't think this band plays the material any better, they do sound better most of the time (fuller, heavier, harder, the guitars are properly tuned, etc...). I still feel three guitars is too much though, especially the shredding tends to make it sound sloppy.

But let's face is GNR is not, never was and never will be a great live-band, in the true sense of the word.

Finally someone said it :hihi:

Lol, your a classic. If you play something with soul thats close to you personally then it evokes that little bit more than someone shredding on a cover version. Thats what I think at least   : ok:

its you're not your  ::)

IMO, GNR plays the older material stronger than its preceding lineups.    Of course this is a matter of personal opinion.     Just because its not the original doesn't mean it can't be better.   you have to be one of the most closed-minded 'GNR fans' on these boards.

Lol, I'm one of the most closed-minded fans? Jeez, mate 'pot and kettle' I feel.  :rofl:

Thanks for the grammar correction. If you have to start picking people's grammar apart as a comeback...well, thats kind of sad is it not?

Its 'GNR' fans not 'GNR fans' as far as I'm concerned if we are are being picky about apostrophes...

the old band had a more metal sound which suited that era of music and the new bands style suits the current rock style we have today, but as for the new guys sounding 1000 times better, you must be on drugs...i see your too young to have seen the old line up which is a shame, and because of that reason you are more likely to appreciate the current line up better than the previous....as with most of the younger fans, where us old gits will mostly pick the original guys. on a personal note i think both GNR's are fucking awesome at what they do.... ;)

I went to JUST ONE Guns N' Roses concert. Just one.

It was the 17th of july, 1993, the fourth and last time GNR played in my country. I have NEVER seen the new lineup live.

Anyway, I still strongly think that this new lineup sounds way better than any of the previous. If there is ONE THING that this new lineup has failed in all these years (2001/2006), that was Axl's vocal irregularity. The instrumental part of the band sounded almost flawless since the first day. If Axl sounded nowadays EXACTLY like he did in 1992 (for example), this thread wouldn't be created.

Oh, and I also collect bootlegs, and I have took the time of listening all the concerts that are available from 1985 to the present. My opinion is based on what I hear, not on nostalgia. I dont know why you are trying to make me look like a noob kid that has discovered GNR yesterday.

I dont know why you are trying to make me look like a noob kid that has discovered GNR yesterday.

you did a fine job by yourself by saying the new band sounds 1000 better.........and you expect people to take you seriously, im not bashing you on a personal note, and everyone has there fav line up etc etc, just a comment like that is like saying you know fuck all about the band(s) you love so much.

l prefer the original line-up as it was better than now, it takes 3 guitarists to replace Slash, l think its shit

2 to replace Slash,1 to replace Izzy :hihi: :peace:

I prefer the new lineup,  however the old line up got it all started, but if I had a choice to go see the two lineups play the same material, Id take the new lineup.

The real Guns N Roses all the way, you know the one with Axl, Slash, Izzy, Steven and Duff in it.

What the fuck is this?  I think most of those posts are from people who haven't seen the real GN'R, who haven't lived the original band era, ...  How can you say that the new band plays the old songs better than the original band?  I read stuff like "the old band was more metal"  Huh?  Metal?  The way Slash plays his guitar is almost pure blues.  I saw the old band once, the new one twice.  The first one I saw with the new band ('02) was really not good.  The second one, last year, was much much better.  I actually enjoyed that gig.  It was nice, the songs were played good but it will never be as good as the original band, doesn't matter how much they try.

my opinion is that axl shouldnt have brought back guns n roses without izzy, slash, duff

also my opinion is that the original guns n roses is holy (at least for me), noone should compare them with axls new band...

when i see people not only comparing but even saying that this band can perform/compose better than the original line-up then you give me a good reason to believe that you dont know anything about guns n roses

no offense

I like the current lineup best. But that could be cos i was born when GN'r were just hittin' the scene, and so never got chance the see the original lineup live.

i still think of them as new guns n roses. Because they a totally different line up, appearing nearly 10 years since gnr did anything proper. the 2001 tour i exclude cause that was just shit.

original line-up all the way :smoking:

That is something relative, in my opinion.

AFTER the show in Wembley 31st, 1991, there were THE SAME NUMBER of true original band members than there are now: ONE (1): W. Axl Rose.

No one calls the band that played in Chicago '92 ''new guns n' roses''.

dont we forget that the first GNR lineup was this:

http://www.gnrontour.com/sets1985/19850326flyer.jpg

Thanks for that. What albums did they release and where can I get them? What tours did they do and where can I see them? Are these the guys that took over the world from 1987 onwards? 

Why bring up these guys? Do you bait Metallica fans because Ron McGovney is no longer in the band?

Best line up was AFD , the most attitude and just fresh young thing going on... Adler was the only let down to that though if I could pick n choose it be

Axl , Slash , Duff, Izzy and Sorum

But let's face is GNR is not, never was and never will be a great live-band, in the true sense of the word.


What in the world do you mean? Do you really mean what the words say? I am in shock.
And what  does "in the true sense of the word" mean?

Sorums shit...love Adlers drummin..matts a robot man..he hits hard and he's precise..but no groove..Stevens awesome shit man

How many bass players were in Metallica? Correct me if I'm wrong

* Ron McGovney
* Cliff Burton
* Jason Newsted
* Robert Trujillo

So, you want me to believe that the ''Black Album'' is an album from ''New New Metallica'' (see the TWO ''new'')

Accept it: a band is a band no matter if they have an album or if they ''take over the world'' like you said. A band is a band even when its lineup changes. Not accepting this is a very inmature attitude.

The easiest way to deal with this subject is calling the band, all lineups, by its own (and only) name: Guns N' Roses. Who are you to  descredit the roots, the honor and the career of a band, by modifying its name, just because you cant accept the reality of the present?

If you dont like the current lineup, feel free to say it. But you should say ''I dont like Guns N' Roses'', because THAT is the name of the band (since Tracii Guns, until now)

estebanf you must be comfused

first you say that after the 08.31.91 show there was only 1 true original band member...ok that was a joke

then you say all this stuff about the lineups....guns n roses is not a football team man...the way you feel it, guns n roses will last forever even when all the members new and old die.....

Guns N' Roses will die the day Axl dies. That's all.

New all the way...atleast when they are fucked up they still can perform properly the old band couldn't.

Why though? If all you guys can say that GNR can keep going because the band name is the same irrespective of whos in it, when why not if Axl leaves, dies or whatever?

If we are going to be picky....

i think youre wrong
but even if you are not thats not a fact to support your opinion

Because he is the voice and face of the band. Always have (altough Slash was one of the faces too).

Who else could sing GN'R songs ? His voice is familiar to thousends of people arround the world, and it is pretty unique.

To me he's the soul of the band,

But that's just my humble opinion ;)

Besides, I don't think that GNR can keep going because the band name is the same irrespective of who's in it, because when you say that, it sounds like you could put basically anybody at any place in the band and it would still be GN'R. I never said that.

Axl+Tommy+Dizzy+Robin are the core of the current lineup. They've been together for more than 10 years now. All the other changes are what was needed to create the band we have today. They took the core and they worked with countless musicians. Some stayed, some left and we've all witnessed that.

We've seen a new GN'R emerging in 2001, then a slightly different band in 2002 (exit Tobias, welcome Richard). Then again, a new one in 2006 (bye Bucket, hello Ron). And during the tour, Frank joined to fill in for Brain.

It's not a revolving cast, to me.

they are together for 10 years?
where is their work

axl+duff+izzy+slash where together for 6 years they sold millions of albums, millions of people went to their shows and we still talk about their music

oh i forgot tommy and robin still play their songs

You're about to have it ;)

 :rofl:
this is a funny topic with a lot of funny posts.

There are those who claim that GN'R is Axl, Steven, Slash, Duff and Izzy. Everything else dos not count.
OK, guys your GN'R stopped to exist 1991 when Dizzy joined the band and when Izzy later left and was replaced by Gilby.
So you are living for 16 years already without "your" GN'R. Cool. Die hard fans - and still here. (A little joke!!!)

Now honestly.
I think we should move on and repect this band, the one that is "Guns N' Roses". And we should give them time. When the CD hit the stores we can discuss everything, but I am 100% sure that there will be some guys who really enjoy the album will say that it would have sounded better with the old members.
And those never ending threads like "does Robin (or any other member) fit in the band" or "is he (any member of the band) really capable of playing this or that".
These questions can be answered with YES!!!
Is Steven capable of staying clean, can Slash play some really cool tunes on the next VR album, can Matt do some heavy drumming..........
Some of these questions can be answered with NO!!!

Don't live in the past. Everyone of the members, the current ones and the former ones are doing what they want to do right now. The former members are playing in a different band. Some of us like them, some not. It's up to you.
It is also up to you if you like the new songs done by GN'R or not. But to call the band "Axl's band" is ignorant and ridiculous. If you want to critisize, you will have to use arguments, not "They are not GN'R!"

That's all.

First of all:

There is one thing that is A FACT: After 08.31.91 (to be more precise, since the first show at the Worcester Centrum, in December 1991), Guns N' Roses had THE SAME number of ORIGINAL members than it has now. You may think that this is irrelevant, but you CANT say I'm lying. Who's that only original band member? W. Axl Rose.

About lineups: Axl Rose (with other people, ''people'' where Slash, Duff and Matt are not included) created a band called Guns N' Roses. He never left the band. He wrote the big majority of the stuff. He has the 100% of the rights of the name ''Guns N' Roses''. He didn't fire Slash nor Duff. That was their choice. So, why you tell me ''this is not a football team''? Things are quite clear: this band is called Guns N' Roses (legally, and by heritage), no matter how many tantrums you throw. ''Your GNR'' exists if Slash is there. You cant accept that GNR existed before Slash, and exists right now, without him.

How many lineup changes has Black Sabbath suffered? Is there one person in the world that calls Tony Iommi's band  ''New Black Sabbath''? AC/DC changed its vocalist and it is still AC/DC. Bon Scott never ''took over the world'' with AC/DC like Brian Johnson did with ''Back In Black''. Does that fact descredit Bon Scott as a true AC/DC former member, and convert Brian Johnson in an ''original'' AC/DC band member? Does that modifies AC/DC name? Of course NOT.

Bands are bands. The way that bands are named its not your decision. Accept it. And WHO are the original band members is not your desicion neither. Accept it. The bands have ONE name and have ONE original lineup. These are not arguable things: these are FACTS.

an almost garage band can't be considered the first Gn'r... Ole, Rob, Tracii, are irrelevant in gn'r history, they got nothing, even a demo.
Gn'r glorius history stars with when Slash and Duff join to Axl and Izzy and of course Steven...
My favourite line up is when Dizzy, Gilby and Matt join the band, I love the 90's because that's when I discovered Gn'r.
I like the actual lineup, but it's not the same, if you are an old gunner you'll understand what I'm saying... if you're a young fan it's ok, but Robin and the other guys, never, ever could replace Slash and co.
I like the actual lineup, I believe Axl was the brain behind Gn'r... but I I had preferred that Axl named his band anything else...
Guns n' roses died several years ago.
This is just my point of view... Peace guys? : ok:

No way. Sebastian Bach will replace him

i think youre so in love with axl rose and you cant see what would be good for your favorite band  :(

if you think he can go on with the same success just using the name guns n roses and replacing the original band members with a few other guys i cant change your mind...


@ mj23
for me ignorant and ridiculous is to consider robin (or any other member) guns n roses and not wanting duff, slash, izzy back

but this is just my opinion

I am not married with Axl nor am I in love with him. I appreciate the music and I appreciate it when I have a good time while listening to some stuff. That's all. And some of you still don't get the point. It ain't about replacing the old guys. The old guys left the band (well Izzy, Slash and Duff while Steven was fired). This band now is GN'R. No matter how much you disagree and how often you post new topics about it. It is a fact. The new record will have its place in GN'R discography. :yes: You will choose whether you like it or not and whether you will buy it or not.

You are right. But only with the last words of the sentenece. I don't want Slash, Duff and Matt back. : ok:
They are not a part of GN'R right now. I really anticipate the new record just to make all non-believers stop the talking.
Having seen the band perform the older songs, especially "Rock am Ring - Nightrain" made me even more sure that the band kicks ass as far as the old tunes are concerned. To me a lot of the AFD tunes sound even stronger and better than in the old days.
And one more annoying thing in some threads is "does a guitar shredder like Ron or a second keyboarder like Chris" fit in GN'R. Yes of course. And I bet if someone would have made up the question in 1987 if GN'R needs a keyboarder or a piano ballad, you would have get the same answers and comments like these days.
Give them time to prove themselves on the record. : ok:

well said mj23 :peace:

ok you re right i shouldnt have used the word replace..they left....but why??i guess ''someone'' made them leave...

and yes the new record will have its place in gnr discography...but not in my heart at least...i will buy it and maybe i will like it....but it wont sound like guns n roses thats 100% sure...

on the other hand i anticipate the reunion not only because i want to, but also because i want to see what will you say or where will you hide...

and about the new members performing the olders songs better, go listen/watch some 86-93 shows maybe it will remind you what the truth is on that subject

I would say: "Cool, let's see if they can rock the house again!"-but that will NOT happen.
Why should I hide? For what? For being realistic?  :hihi:
C'mon, don't be a little kid. Face the fact that these times are gone, maybe they will come together for a show like introduction in the "Hall of Fame" or whatever, but right now I even doubt this possibility.


I am a fan since 1987 and I know what I am talking about. The truth is: Nightrain from "Rock am Ring" 2006 is better than any Nightrain done by the original line-up. Better as far as my taste is concerned. Why should your opinion on this be of greater value than mine? Are you serious???
You are claiming that there are a lot of fans looking for a reunion. Maybe yes. But there are a lot of fans who celebrate this band, these guys that are Guns N' Roses.
I am really looking forward to hearing the studio versions of the new songs. I prefer to have the one "original" member left and to recognize the music than to listen to some songs done by a "pseudo-casting" group with a lousy singer.  :hihi:
Therefore "Chinese Democracy" will have a special place right beside the other GN'R releases, and I will have it there with pride. :peace:

I love how some people think its up to them to decide what is Guns N Roses.   What an immature stance.   You don't get to make this decision, so if you are, fuck off.   GnR is GnR (todays lineup) and no whining asshole can change that.  : ok:

since when are we discussing facts? we are discussing opinions here.
but if you want facts..just collect some bootlegs...and watch them ;)
though i learned the hard way..and 1993 was a fucked up year, even worse then 2002 American leg of the tour.

after this post i know im not wrong
cause you badmouth someone when u dont have nothing else to say and support what you believe...

and nightfall 93 was not good yes but the show i attended was good enough :)
2002 american leg??whats that?? :P