Here Today... Gone To Hell!

The new version of the band...where will they stand in history??

For example...rock legends....great.....good....could have been....or trainwreck??

after album release, it will be determined
to me, they are the best in the world

They are of course legendary, but if they had stayed together for ten more years, they could have been up there with Beatles and Stones.

To me, Guns is the best band ever, and I DO know that even my mom and dad appreciates the brilliance of November Rain.

The thing is, Axl is a composer. Songs like NR, will get a much wider recognition in - say - 50 years than only as a rock song. It's a masterpiece, but people never realize such before someone is dead. Tragic, but it's just the way it is.

legends !!! how the hell else would the be viewed as?

yeah... ok.  ::)

the album release will just fuel more jokes. critics will have a field day with it.  :smoking:

GN'R is great... not the best. They are seen more as they "could have been the greatest"... if they weren't a timebomb waiting to explode. They are no where near the legendary status of Led Zeppelin, the Beatles, or Black Sabbath. You can't compare the two. GN'R were cut short, and it was their own fault. Not a big deal.... it is what it is.  ;D

They will be remembered as great... not the best.  :beer:

Yeah unfortunately the new band right now is viewed at by many people as a big joke.  They will not gain legitimacy until they release the album.  Until then people will continue to view them as a glorified cover band.  Sad, but true. 

Please, tell me what your crystal ball says about Lotto.  :P

The demos were well received in some media outlines. Why would the album fuel more jokes if it can be really good? Not everyone will judge the songs by the time Axl took to release it.

I'd agree with you on the first two, but as status goes, I think they completely overshadow Black Sabbath - hands down!

Hey, fools!  Read the question!

The long shot is that the album becomes a classic and the new version of the band earns a respectable place in rock history.  Most likely, it will be remembered as Axl being a control freak and trying to recreate something that didn't have the original vibe, no matter how good the band actually is.  That "story" is set in many people's minds before they even hear the music.   : ok:

the cold hard facts is the new band will always be viewed as the Axl Rose solo project OR Axl with hired hands....If the new album comes out and the new memebers have writing credits then it can change but until then......

I think GNR's standing in Rock history over the last 10 years has improved a lot. From the mid-1990s when they were mistakingly grouped with 1980s hair metal acts to today where they are revered as an iconic MTV Rock band with the likes of Nirvana, Metallica, U2 and RHCP. A lot of it has to do with THE FANS who have come out to support past works of GNR in record sales that still sustain themselves as among the highest of vintage rock groups.

Because GNR was so hard to duplicate, you could say that their DIRECT influence on other bands and rock music around them is somewhat mute. They are one of a kind and people think that means they had no influence. What they did have is an INDIRECT influence on other people and bands. Axl himself said he didn't like being imitated. As much as people compare him perhaps to Robert Plant and Steven Tyler, and Sid Vicious, he was all that and MORE, which made his performances and music all the more unique and special. This may be the biggest hinderance in the general consensus of ranking GNR among the greatest ever because critics would be mistaken to imply that this meant GNR music was limited in its scope and inspiration when all of us at HTGTH know otherwise.

I doubt the new GNR can inspire a generation of new rock n' rollers to sound like them and be like them. But a successful comeback (millions of new fans and albums sold) would put them in the scope of Rolling Stones and Aerosmith as having a trans-generational relevance and popularity. That would be the ultimate in polishing off GNR's legacy.

MNR

I'm pretty sure they will.  I remember Axl talking about how Robin Finck had written Better.

It's hard to judge how GNR will be looked at in the history books, because it's basically a story like the Bible, it has an old testament, and a new testament, the original band and the current band. The original band, I think, will be looked upon as a fantastic band that pretty much bridged the 80's to the 90's. The started the end of "hair metal" and laid the ground work for the harder rock of the 90's. They were an extremely talented, rough, street-wise, charismatic band that were the "real deal". They will always be known for Slash's guitar work and Axl being the greatest front-man of that era. The current GNR, it's hard to tell. If Axl can pull off the greatest return in music history, he'll be hailed as a genius. Once this band is finally recognized as a legitimate band, and not called a cover band, or hired guns, then people will get to see how great they are...

The original line-up of the band easily ranks in the top 25. ?(The order of the top 25 bands is alway very debatable...but they are definitely ranked with the other greats)

I would consider the original line-up to also be one of the top 5 bands to come out in the past 25 years.

AS far as the new version of the band is concerned, at the moment, they are nothing more than a footnote. ?It's impossible to tell how they will fare in the modern music scene. ?Will they be embraced like the new Bruce Springsteen ?or will they be mocked? ?I would vote for the former. ?The impression of the new band has been favorable by reviewers who saw last year's tour...and the review of the leaks has been mostly positive. ?We all know MTV will embrace them. ?But despite some success, I seriously doubt they will ever re-achieve what the original line-up did. ?

If the original line-up was the Beatles...then the new line-up is Wings. ?And that's not a bad thing!

did the public accept David Lee Roth's solo career? Did the public accept Aerosmith when Perry was out of the band? hell even hagar Van Halen was never fully accepted....

GnR are in a brief section of RR history....they could have been up there, but with so few albums they cant compare with the heavyweights ...except in their live shows of the the late80s/early 90s era where they were equal to the best live performers ever.  They had maybe 4 years max at the top, which many other bands achieved, and are now fading memories....it must be about 15 years now...imagine the Beatles releasing a new album in 1985...it would outsell anything instantly....thats because they released a multitude of quality albums which changed music full stop, and were hughely talented....there is no doubt axl and gnr could have attained something resembling historic status if they had not self imploded .
                   Perhaps Axl realises that and is pondering too much...no doubt he wants CD to be  a massive success but he's perhaps too scared of failure to release it till he is well out of the spotlight. As a loyal GNR fan since 89 I think unless CD is released imminently all credibility will soon be lost...unless Axl is deliberatley plotting some mega release of like 3 consecutive separate albums and either a tour to support to try to be the biggest comeback of all time, or becoming a real Howard Hughes and fuelling publicity by simply 'disappearing'.
                Anything is possible, when you get into your 40s and survey your life and the world, your priorities change, I wouldnt be surprised if either Axl has either canned the whole CD project for ten years till hes bored and the media have forgotten about it, or hes about to unleash something we couldnt imagine. Expect the unexpected. So basically unless CD or its equivalents arrive and are quality, GNR are on the substitutes bench of RR history.

Unfortunately most of the responses in this thread were actually off topic but they are much appreciated.  I was asking how the NEW version of the band would stand in the history of rock n' roll....not the original...but that's ok.

Anyone who said the original band wouldn't go down with the all time greats simply doesn't understand rock n' roll.....they already have.  The original band's music is played alongside (if not more often) than Zeppelin, Sabbath, the Stones, the Beatles, the Doors and Aerosmith on just about any classic rock station in the U.S. (I don't know about the rest of the world)

The new version of the band seems like they will be remembered in a fashion  similar to the way Black Sabbath is remembered post the Ozzy era....still a good band but a far cry from the original.

I honestly think, shame as it is, is that they will be just footnotes, as someone already said.
Even if CD is a success etc, people will always want the classic line up to reunite, and it will always be 'Axl with those other guys.'

Think of it like this. Pink Floyd have released two albums since Waters left with Guy Pratt on bass. Both the albums were huge successes, they did huge tours for them, and they were critically praised. But Guy Pratt isn't considered a rock legend like the other three and Waters.

Good point :)

I think GN'R will always be remembered as a great rok group purely based on the success and popularity of Appetite For Destruction, 30 million copies sold worldwide can't be wrong. Also in recent times, GN'R are still growing in popularity, their music video's like November Rain always reach peak positions of things like 'best video' and 'best power-ballds' aswell as AFD always doing well on 'best album' polls

I mean it's been 14 since a last studo album and 16 years since the last album(s) of 'real' material, but they can still perform huge world tours like they did last year, even though they xcancel;led a tour halfway through in 2002, so that just shows how badly people want to see them, in spite of everything they've done

Right now, this incarnation of the band doesnt have a place in R&R history. WHat have they done? The original lineup has a secure place in R&R history, up thier with bands like Sabbath, Zepplin, Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, and even the Beatles. Time can only tell for the 'new' GnR.

the "new" version of the band...unfortunately as hard as it is for some people to accept, the world @ large considers GNR in the past tense, its non-existent for the most part so their place in rock history will be an afterthought
the original version has already earned their spot in rock history although it will always be considered too short-lived

The thing about Guns N' Roses that made them great was the attitude.  I don't think there is a word for it in English, but in Scots we'd call them "gallus".  Perhaps in this context "swagger" would come close.  Meh, Scottish people will know what I mean. 

Anyway  - that swagger they had was just great.  Zep, AC/DC, Aerosmith and of course GnR had that "gallusness" to just rock and strut on a stage like they owned the damned place.  The sleaze, the fire...indie killed off so much of that.  It seems that too many bands want to take themselves too seriously, to sound as vulnerable as they can with slow piano ballads and accoustic guitars that stifle the life out of their music.  Piano ballads etc. are not bad things in themselves, of course (in small doses, I think) but can anyone say that anything they've heard from Keane or Coldplay gives them the same buzz as Ace of Spades or Whole Lotta Love?  The problem is that eveyone wants to be Pink Floyd and nobody wants to be Led Zep. 

To bring this to the point of the thread, I think that the "new" GnR will only regain their place among rock's greats if they can throw off the shackles and just rock.  Or rather, if people in general notice that this has happened, since we all know fine well they can do it. 

If they can just go out and slay (on record as well as on tour) in a way that lets the world at large know they are back, they will get back to where they once belonged.

They were still pretty accepted though... By most people anyways. They did better than most bands that tried without the original band members... (speaking in terms of VAN HAGAR.) XD

VH didn't become a joke till gary cherone came on board.

history will view the new band well if they sell millions and millions of records and sell out gigantic stadiums.  it all comes down to how good CD is.  if they are shit to average it could actually tarnish the rep of the appetite guns...

no matter what though they can never escape the shadow the old band - they are just too iconic/amazing.

GnR will be put up with bands and artists such as Elvis, Nirvana, the Beatles. They came out at the right time. Their influence is felt and continues to be felt to  this day. Gnr Haven't put out an album in a very long time yet their legacy lives on. Hopefully the general public will be accepting of CD when it comes out. They will be a shoe in for the Rock and Roll hall of fame.

van hagar was accepted for themost part but DLR's solo career tanked after  his 2nd solo record...

Speaking of the HOF, the original band is eligible for induction from 2012 onwards. If they are selected to be inducted in 2012, in all seriousness and forgeting the talk of reunions, how do people think it will all pan out when they are inducted,if not in 2012 but in the years that follow. I hope the members of the original line up(whoever turns up) give a good account of the band.

I hope it wouldn't be as much of a disaster as Van Halen at the HOF this past year, but I have a feeling it will be.

I have the same feeling as yourself. I mean they might suprise us, but I doubt all the line up will be all together to accept it. And I would assume it would be Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy and Steven that would be inducted ? That's another problem I see.

It's a lot of nonsense to suggest that GnR have influenced all the metal bands of today.  I sure as hell heven't heard any trace og GnR music in Wintersun...  That sounds to me like exactly the kind of crap that MTV would come out with.