Here Today... Gone To Hell!

this may be a stretch, but is it possible axl isnt releasing these songs because he may want his ex bandmates to collaborate with him on them?  discuss.

Not a good theory.. rather a hypotheses... and that hypotheses has no good foundation at all... sorry!

A better word would be speculation.. the discourse has a lot more room for speculations...  :hihi:

no foundation whatsoever, youre absolutely correct, thats why i stated it as theory instead of fact.

A theory also needs empirical evidence.. In the university of HTGTH we can not credit your statement as a theory. Kiddin...

That said.. your statement can still be a possibility, but i guess the scientists at HTGTH would discard it util further evidence can be presented.

 :hihi:

Stupid

Not stupid at all. Various members have quit. Axl hasn't released these songs. There are potentially many other songs in various stages of completion that are unreleased. There are rumors of things possibly being patched up between axl and slash. Please explain how this idea is stupid.

As Nyuntz said, no empirical evidence at all, just a wild idea pulled out of someone's fantasy daydreams.

It's more fun to discuss than the "this isn't a band" idiocy though  :hihi:

Okay, let's forget I said "theory" and change the verbage to "speculation". Let's not get caught up in semantics. Anyhow... does anyone think it's POSSIBLE axl brings his unreleased music to the table with ex members???

The material is already done!? ???

Oh you heard it? How did it sound???

According to Axl, the material's "already recorded" and "been done for a while."  But so was CD before Bumble layered his parts on there.  You can add this to the pile of reasons why a new album has not been released.  IMO, CDII hasn't been released because Axl doesn't want to/isn't ready to yet.  When/if that changes, we'll hear it.

Very rude and inaccurate.  It would make good business sense to have classic lineup members contribute to a track or two.  It would drum up more interest from the general public.  I had actually thought of this before. 

Axl pasted Bumblefoot solos over the Chinese Democracy I songs.
Why wouldn't he paste Slash solos onto the Chinese Democracy II songs?
Say what you want about Slash -- he comes up with good guitar solos.

Slash comes up with great guitar solos. And because he is Slash it is not fair to paste.  What you can do is to ask him to write new solos and make new songs

FACT: You have too much time on your hands

I have to say, at this point, anything is possible. I wouldn't write off Axl sending potential album tracks to Slash for his ideas IF a reunion was on the horizon. Nothing to lose.... :P

It's always amusing when someone types "discuss" at the end of their statement...

This isnt a school exam!  ::)

it's always amusing when someone has to be a dick in every post they make.... ::)

discuss

already discussed Einstein....I could see Axl sending songs to Slash IF IF IF IF there was a reunion on the horizon....that is all I got. Pretty simple really as an album has not been tracklisted and set for release. If you know anything about rock and roll history, then you would realize nothing is final until the music is literally set for release. I don't have time to educate you on rock and roll 101. Sorry.

I didn't ask for you to take time to "educate me" on anything. In fact... its amusing that my initial comment riled you so much,. considering it was aimed at the OP in jest.. and not you.  ::)

As for your opinions on Rock n Roll 101... when you pass that class... let me know.  ;)
 

Why is that so amusing? I don't get it...

The elephant in the room with this idea is the money, Axl has in the main funded this (based on the assumption that the costs were accrued at the same time as CD) Yet for other former GnR artist(s) to come on board and add to this, they aren't going to fly with a contracted employee status.

Why not?
Some of Slash's best work was as a contracted employee.
Have you ever heard any of his stuff with Lenny Kravitz or Michael Jackson?

Why would the other originals be at all interested in this?

Do you guys seriously think they respect any of this?  Guys that toured under their banner, playing their parts?  I know Izzy has played the odd song with them, and Duff even done a few shows.  And both were professional about it.  But do you really think they have much respect for their replacements or the whole operation?

I know there are some that cling like grim death to this narrative this is all a straight line evolution and its all good in the hood.  But is it?  We know damn well that the general public doesn't see it that way, and neither does a sizable portion of our own fanbase.  It reminds me of Republicans that shut down the government, and then try and say its "Obama's shutdown."  Please.  That might play in their echo chamber, but this is real life.

I find myself listening to this stuff about how some reunited band would play CD songs and work on CDs songs to be total fantasy.  I just don't see the interest on their part.

Why would they tour with the new lineup if they felt "disrespected" by them? ???

Its more that I question how seriously they take all this.

On some level they made their peace with what Axl wound up doing with their band, but does that mean they are ready to "dive in and find the monkey" with regards to the material a bunch of randos worked on?

You heard CD.  We all did.  Is it their kind of music?  Is Slash going to be all that interested to give his take on a song in the vein of 'Shackler's' or 'Rhiad'? 

Let me put it the other way around. What if Axl wants Anastasia and Fall To Pieces in the set list? I don?t see why not. The fans would love it. And I don?t see Slash and Duff being against it.

So if Axl wants them to play TIL and TWAT I guess they can reach an agreement. I don?t need that in a GN?R show. But if they want to do it I?m not against it.

As for the old band recording or performing CD II. Well is there a CD II to begin with? The only full song we have heard is Goin Down. The first thing we need to know is that there is a CD II in the vault or somewhere. And that Axl can?t wait to release it. So far it doesn?t look that way. On top of that we need to know what the deal with both bands is.

We know that DJ, BFF and Tommy are out. But Axl might want to find new guys to replace them. I find it insane at this point but with GN?R anything is possible. Assuming that Axl finds new guys then there is no reunion. In that case all this debate about reunion is a waste of time and energy.

We don?t know what?s gonna happen next. All we can do is just talk about what we would like to see in the future.

Ugh-"What Axl wound up doing with their band"??

Slash, Duff and Steven joined a pre-existing band- that is not debatable. Granted the original lineup was not long-lasting nor popular, but that doesn't change the fact that Axl and Izzy were the founding members.

This is all theoretical supposition and speculation, but can we keep at least one foot in reality?

But is that why any of them are there?  People on stage, people in the crowd...everybody.

If a miracle occurred and Slash did choose to come back, is it because he's been dying to get a crack at 'This I Love'?  I would think his interest to come back would be to play the stuff he did work on and made his bones with.  Not a fill in for a fill in that filled in for him, you know?

That's semantics no one cares about though.  To most of the planet, the AFD line-up is the original band.  Despite how one of us might win a bar bet dropping the names Ole Beich or Rob Gardner.

And I'm approaching it more from the stance this was all their band.  It was the best known thing any of them have ever and will ever do.  It will be the first line in their obituaries.

But, let's be honest, for the past 20 years they have all had to deal with a bastardized version of their band.  And had to field the same old questions about what became of that band.  To which I have to suppose the answer was some variation of a smirk, a head shake, and your basic "You'd have to ask Axl, dude.  I'm sort of out of that now."

I have trouble seeing Slash, Izzy, or Duff come back in the fold and say "OK, first things first, Axl.  Show me what you and Robin were working on before he left."

Why?  Robin is not in the band they recognize and consider themselves a part of.  He was just a guy to them.  Do they care about his input : good, bad, or indifferent?

Nobody is saying that Slash is desperate to play TIL. But in a potential set list they can mix things. They don?t need to play it every show but from time to me it could happen.

Ironically, I think Slash would crush that particular song.  Of all the songs on the album, that was far and away the one I'd have like to have heard Slash on.

And I think Axl will be amazing in Fall To Pieces, Anastasia or Gotten. It?s just about adding something extra to shows once in a while. If they don?t do it I don?t mind at all. But if they feel like it then why not?

I agree with all of this.  It?s called compromise?I know, I know, arguably not Axl?s strong suit (ARTISTIC INTEGRITY) but if he wants some CD songs played (and I think he would) the only natural response from Slash and Co. would ok, but we want a couple of our songs, too.  And let?s be honest, we?re only talking one or two songs anyway.  The most recent lineup was only playing about 4-5 CD songs.  No one?s expecting Shackler?s to come back.

In place of an AC/DC cover or something?  Yeah, might be cool.

He also recorded "to good to be true" album in 1997;
but decided never to release it, cus it was 2 good to be true.

it supposedly had Freddy Mercury and Michael Jackson as backin vocals.

It isn't semantics, those are facts.

How would you know how they feel about GNR? How would you know how they feel about Robin?

Guess speculation, fantasy scenarios and assumption are de rigueur today.

On paper?  In a vacuum?  Technically? 

Yes, whichever of those phrases you pick to preface your comment that Slash of Duff are not true blue original members, you are correct.

But where does it resonate?  An argument's impact is only as good as its plausibility in the eyes of the folks.

Take one of your other standbys.  How you must be at a Guns N' Roses concert because...why, look right here!  Its says Guns N' Roses on my ticket!!

Paper, vaccum, technically...true.

Accepted by many people?  Not really.  Doesn't make you wrong, but I think its well fair to ask what you are really accomplishing past a "just sayin'" sort of retort that will be rejected by the many.

It's all fun and games, having hypothetical discussions.

But you forgot one fact. Anything released on Chinese Democracy is by Guns N' Roses.
The other songs are not.




/jarmo

If slash were to start riffing off some of the CD material here or there at his shows then that would interesting and perhaps telling?

The truth remains the truth even if many are willfully ignorant or prefer lies.

I'm going to watch every single show he does on this tour looking for that.  :o

That's... True.
Popular opinion doesn't change facts....





/jarmo

So? They could cover those songs. The same way they have covered other songs by other artists. Again there is no obligation

Saying Traci and Ole were the original remembers is flaming the discussion...it is going to get the same reaction until the end of time ... whether its a "fact" or not.

I truly don't care about them in any way...nobody does.

As to this discussion... it's a pure guessing game... nobody will ever know why this album or past albums have taken so long to be released. The one guy with the answers... doesn't appear to be spilling the beans any time soon.

I doubt he is considering holding on to the songs to see what Slash could do with them...Slash didn't care for these songs 20 years ago... don't know why he would now... but who the hell knows.

Why?

The point I was trying to make is that it's more likely you'll hear something released by Guns N' Roses at a concert than something that wasn't released by GN'R. :)



/jarmo

Astounding.

I would agree.

But I'd also suggest you are talking about something with a 1% chance of happening versus something with 0%.

Not sure there is an appreciable distinction there.

You missed the point, it had nothing to do with Ole or Tracii- more to do with the fact that Steven, Slash and Duff joined a pre-existing band, and that Axl and Izzy are the founding members.

In a speculative, theoretical conversation such as this, I suppose people want to fantasize about and invent their own facts too.  :hihi:

The conversation was about how most people are under the impression Slash, Duff, and Steven are original members.

They will have had no idea that's wrong before you "correct the record" and then will forget it 30 seconds later.

That was what I was driving at.  Where is the payoff for you on this?  You can say you were right?  Does that have value?

I prefer facts over fallacy.

You may be right about people's attention spans nowdays though, and information retention capabilities- they don't even listen to complete albums anymore.

Isn't that nuts?

Ever since I'm a kid, when you first get an album, you listen all the way through.

I had a buddy that only got into 'Estranged' because he kept rewinding his cassette to get to 'You Could Be Mine'.

When I asked why it took that to happen, he told that YCBM and DC were the only tunes he listened to on the 2nd side of that tape.

And this was like...a full month after it came out.  Crazy.

Are you saying that back in GnR's heyday, people were referring to Slash, Steven and Duff as joining a pre-existing band?  I don't recall that being the case.  Shortened attentions spans (is that a squirrel?) have nothing to do with recognizing them as being part of the original lineup.  It's a semantics argument that gets you nothing. 

I don't have a long attention span, but it is longer than Tracii, Ole, and Rob were in the band...

Look at gnrontour.com Ole did one show, Traci did about 5, and it appears Rob played in 3... all in the span of 1 month, then in June of 85 the AFD lineup played it's first show. So while 'FACT' Ole and Rob are founding members, did they ever have any impact on the band other than they were there for a show? At least Tracii gave GnR part of it's name, but they bailed at the first sign of adversity. Everyone bashes former members for bailing on Axl when he was looking to grow and redfine the musical direction of the band, but early on these three bailed when they found out they were driving too far up the coast. I wouldn't give them much credit for anything.

That is so funny, I had a friend that did the same, except he didn't listen to Don't Cry because it wasn't the version he saw on MTV or heard on the radio. He only budged on Estranged when the video came out then he started giving more and more of the songs a chance when he saw what he was missing.

Once again- not really talking about what Ole, Tracii ot Rob contributed nor anything else related to their being in the band at one time for the moment in time they were there, I'm cognizant of what they contributed, how long they were in the band, and why they left and were replaced. I'm aware of the history.

The point I was making is that Steven, Duff and Slash joined a pre-existing band and that Axl and Izzy are founding members. That is an undeniable fact.

These kinds of attention spans are also present when people think of Matt and Gilby.....
Do certain people look at them in the same light as Frank or Richard? Of course not....

Should we start the name discussion again? Was it fair for Guns N' Roses to be called Guns N' Roses in 1985 after three members quit the band? :D
Just kidding.




/jarmo

Nope, no idea what you are babbling about squirrels, and I never said "people were talking about Slash, Steven and Duff joining a pre-existing band" Your reading comprehension could use some work.

Fact is they did join a existing group- GNR existed before Slash, Duff, and Steven- and exists after them. That is an undeniable fact no matter how much you try and deny it.

It is crazy, when I buy albums I listen to them start to finsh because the intended sequence of the songs is interesting to me as well as the individual songs.

I think a lot is overlooked when you don't listen to an album in it's entirety.   : ok:

The truth is the truth... .but what you fail to accept is that the wider majority aren't bothered by it and dont see it that way for obvious reasons.. whether it be who was the "founding members" or what people believe is the real guns n roses or what isnt. This seems to grate you heavily.

Maybe you like to point out what the general public thinks because you don't like the actual truth? :D




/jarmo

hahaha everybody has their "own truth" mate... just look at this board.  ;)

Here's another truth: This is a Guns N' Roses fan site.
Also something some have a hard time understanding....




/jarmo

Who's denying its the truth?  I personally said it was the truth several times.

What I also said is that, truth or not, no one gives a shit.  It wins you a bar bet, maybe, but no one really cares.

That's wrong? 

Wrong again, save those special internet perceptions, they don't work for you particularly well.

I honestly don't care what the "wider majority accepts" it is GNR whether they like it or whether they don't -that is non-negotiable fact.

Are you really going to regurgitate the name discussion? It is a stupid, pointless, idiot wind topic.

We know u dont care Emily. Thats not a problem for me. Living in your own world where everything is rosey and sweet in GNR land works for you.. indulge yourself.  :D

Here is a question... if the previous incarnation of guns was still together.. and Axl croaked tomorrow and that version of guns was continuing and they got a front man from a pub to sing the songs.. would you still call it guns n roses?

Just a question between forum friends  ;)

I love Layne Staley.
I named a cat after him.
He is the reason

I'm an Alice fan.
Now William DuVall is lead
And they're still Alice.

I still enjoy them
And listen to their new stuff
Just as happily.

Alice in Chains lives
Without my once-fav singer.
Guns would live on, too.

Splash

/Mike

God bless ya Mike... :peace:

MCGANN : A GOD

Ok, the point may be missed here or I may have not been clear enough. I wouldn't expect any original member to work on or rework any parts of their succesors... I was asking if axl may be saving the lyrics/vocals/melodies, or anything else HE has written himself for possible future collaboration with ex members.

Can someone please post an interview where Tracii, Rob or Ole claimed to be founding members or claimed rights over anything GN?R related stuff?

In those early days GN?R was just a mere excuse for Axl and Tracii to play together. They were friends and they enjoyed each other company. They wanted to share the stage outside their respective bands. That?s all GN?R meant in the very begining.

That?s normal it happens to  all or most bands. Ringo Starr was not The Beatles first drummer. That doesn?t mean he is not a founding member. In fact The Fabulous Four were in the very begining five guys.

A stable band just doesn?t happen overnight

Now that's not a bad shout.

Not saying its true, but it isn't inconceivable that Axl would hold a song back that he had somebody in mind to play on.  Like a signature song that his appreciation of a persons style would fit exactly, I'm thinking Duff and not Slash though....

Honestly not interested in entertaining your morbid fantasies, and I'm not your friend.

If you have issues with GNR, why are you here? This is a fan forum.

Take your twisted idiocy somewhere else.

Did I reply to you?
I offered a possible explanation on why some are so sensitive about the band's first year. If you point out to certain people that Slash wasn't the original guitar player in the band, it's met with "oh yeah? I don't care, that other dude didn't do anything in the band!". Well, that might be true, but it doesn't make the fact invalid. That's the whole point.

So to see GN'R fans on a GN'R fan site discuss this is a bit funny. I assume most people here know the band's history and don't need to point out which one of those guys had a bigger impact in the band and to ridicule the other.....

Why do some hate the original GN'R?
Joking, joking....  :hihi:



/jarmo

I find the whole, ?Slash isn?t an original member of Guns n Roses? to be very odd.  When the band was signed by Geffen, who were the members?  That?s it.  Period.  It?s like saying you?re on the basketball team, but really you were there for tryouts and a scrimmage, then got cut.  Sorry, you?re not on the team.  It?s a really poor attempt to inflate Axl?s importance to Guns (we get it, he?s the most important one), and to devalue the contributions of Slash, Duff, and Steven, and (not so) cleverly disguised as ?setting the record straight?.

Jarmo, honestly, do you really view Slash, Duff and Steven as replacement players?  Or, it is just an interesting footnote that, prior to the band being signed, Tracii, Rob, and Ole played at a bar with Axl and Izzy for a couple of shows?  Or do we fully give in to semantics and call them the classic lineup?

Obviously not.  But I never got the impression it was about that.

The people that bring it up seem to be attempting to establish some phony relativism.  In other words, if you bring up the sheer volume of personnel changes from 1998 onwards, you are told its same as it ever was.  Why...Slash wasn't even the original guitarist, don'cha know?

While that fact is not in dispute, its application to modern day is a stretch, to put it mildly.  As if someone leaving and being replaced by someone else before any of us have ever heard of them is right on par with Axl replacing the entire band one they become worldwide global rock icons.

Who's buying that rationale?  Not many, I suspect.  Certainly not me.

I have to agree with Ginger and D-Gen...the Tracii, Ole shit kinda bugs me too. Drop it already. 3 or so shows...who knows if they even got paid!  :hihi:

Yup.. I'm with you on this one.

Not much more to add. Axl and Traci came up with the name Guns N Roses... it was just a name... a band name... they didn't do anything with it to that point. They were not an existing band... Slash and Steven and Duff didn't copy their parts on any pre existing songs...did they?

The Appetite lineup created the SONGS that made this band .. who created the name...doesn't matter too much.

Any discussion involving the band name and facts about who is in it what it means, and legally speaking...it's all meaningless.

In 75 years when we are all long gone, who are rock historians( if anybody even cares then) going to talk about? Traci, Dj Ashba, Bumblefoot, Brain, Buckethead? Take your pick of any these people... None of them will ever get mentioned in relation to Guns N Roses. For a laundry list of reasons.

well, be fair to Bucket and Brain and all the guys who wrote the CD era songs....they have songwriting credits on a Gnr album.

Oh agreed... it was a mistake to compare them to the guys that played two shows with Axl Rose in 1985.

My point was that because someone was there the first day that doesn?t make that person original or founding member. Tracii and others were there only for a couple of months and shows. They performed mostly covers. For them in those days GN?R was mostly a hobby. Their priority was L.A. Guns and Hollywood Rose. Sure, the Guns part of the name came from Tracii?s last name. However it is funny that as a so called "original" he never asked the others to get rid of the word Guns.

It was after The Hell Tour when things begun to get a bit more serious

On top of that, fast forward to 1996. It seems that Axl never called Tracii, the so called "original member" for a second chance. I think Tracii would?ve joined in a heart beat.  I think it shows Axl didn?t think of them as founders of anything. But hey Axl now needs to replace BBF so he can still call  Tracii "The Original" Guns

Last year, the GG Awards Axl thanked all the line ups. I can?t imagine that Axl was thinking  "yeah those guys Tracii, Ole and Rob. I really need to thank them"  :hihi:

Hahahaha

All well said.  Agreed all around.

No, I don't view them as replacement players. I respect what they did in GN'R and their time in the band. But at the same time, I know enough than to get all upset if somebody points out that the band existed before some of them joined.

That's the point.

It's like the same people who get upset about that are the ones who keep making fun of everybody who's been in the band since 1996.




And yet, without that particular little event in history when Axl and Tracii merged their bands together, there might not be a Guns N' Roses today.
Think about it. The name didn't appear out of the blue.




And before somebody gets upset again. I'm not saying anything disrespectful about Slash, Duff or Steven.  :P



/jarmo

*

Traci Guns = GUNS / Axl Rose = ROSES / In Summary: GUNS & ROSES

**

 :hihi: :rofl: :hihi:

Exactly.

You don't need to have a shrine for Tracii Guns to actually have some kind of respect for the fact that, no matter how insignificant his musical input was in the band, he was there when the band got its name....

Call it a footnote, call it insignificant, silly or whatever the fuck you want.

But it's a fact.




/jarmo

This Is Simply:

""" Thanks To All Line Up's """

Axl Rose 2014

 :smoking:

Well said!

I will never know why a certain few get so upset and unreasonably defensive when the actual history of the band is mentioned.   :hihi:

Well, don't forget about New Hollywood Rose -- Axl Rose, Slash, Steven Adler and Steven Darrow.
They pre-date Guns N' Roses by a full year.
They played more gigs AND stayed together longer than the Tracii Guns version of GNR.

So you're saying they were the originals, then became the new originals, and later on went on to become the regulars?

 ;)

Yeah, they played together in that new Hollywood Rose, but it wasn't GN'R yet....



/jarmo

Hahahahaha

That's awesome.

That was a Spinal Tap reference....  Excellent movie. I mean, rockumentary. :D



/jarmo

Ian Faith: Nigel gave me a drawing that said 18 inches. Now, whether or not he knows the difference between feet and inches is not my problem. I do what I'm told.

David St. Hubbins: But you're not as confused as him are you. I mean, it's not your job to be as confused as Nigel.

There is an old interview posted at the former members section. There our "beloved" original Tracii said he hasn`t seen Axl since 88. On top of the he is bitchin`about how Axl wants things his way or no way.

Hard to imagine Axl was thinking about him at GG when he thanks all the line ups

As someone posted Tracii, Ole and Rob are just a footnote in the GN`R history. Not real founders nor original

 8)

A founder is one who founds something. If you're there the day a band starts, what does that make you?
Keep telling yourself that...

Oh no, Slash and Steven didn't start GN'R. Oh the horror.


Like I've said. I never listened to LA Guns, never paid attention to Tracii Guns. But still, he was there when GN'R started. I'm a GN'R fan, I know that much.

You're a GN'R fan, and here you are telling everybody he's not a founder and that his part in the GN'R history is irrelevant.
Why?

Once again, maybe I have a too low tolerance for bullshit. But what you're saying is bullshit. Sorry.
Stop trying to rewrite history just because you prefer another guitarist over the guy who was there before....



/jarmo

Ok the band had two foundations. One with Tracii, Rob and Ole. And later a second foundation after The Hell Tour. Deal?

 :-*

The band was founded by a group of people, some of them left before the band got anywhere and were replaced by others who stuck around until the band became a worldwide success.

If this thing bothers you so much, does it bother you that some of the GN'R songs you love, were written before Slash was in the band? Now, obviously the band that eventually recorded the songs put their own stamp on them. But the foundations of the songs were done before. I said the F word there. Sorry. I know it's a sensitive subject....  :D



/jarmo

This seems like kind of a silly argument.  This...


Maybe it was Stash. :D

(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBFFT6lUwAA_AiZ.jpg)

AJjaJAJajajAJjaJAjaJAJa

You can post all the pictures you want (that many of us have seen before) and it doesn't change the fact that Slash, Duff and Steven joined a pre-existing band.

Why is the actual truth about the history of GNR so resented by a few people here? 

Ridiculous :hihi:

Who cares.  Ridiculous, yes.

Oh it is very apparent that some here care enough to try and rewrite history or redefine what a founder is.    :hihi:

That doesn't change anything.

Nothing changes the simple fact that Slash, Steven and Duff joined a pre-existing group.

Who cares.  Doesn't change the history of the band.

Duh!
That's just what I stated above- absolutely nothing can change the fact that Slash, Duff, and Steven joined a pre-existing band.

This is as stupid and idiotic as the other issues that some "fans" like to keep regurgitating endlessly.

Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy and Steven started what makes GN'R the band it is today.

Haha  :hihi:

Doesn't change the fact that Duff, Slash and Steven joined a pre-existing group, that is non-negotiable, non-changing history.

You're just going to keep repeating that.  Over, and over. :hihi:

Because it is a fact and the truth.

It doesn't matter how much you try and deny it, mimimalize it, qualify it and discount it- it remains a fact and the truth.

No idea why it upsets certain "fans" so much-  :hihi:

Jesus.  You people are like little kids.

You are right they did join a pre existing band.

Then they proceeded to do what no other incarnation beside them could do.

They recorded one of the most electrifying rock albums ever.  Caught the attention of almost everyone on the planet (I know that is a bit of hyperbole).  Recorded and toured for roughly 5-6 years and then imploded all over themselves.  All the while still holding the attention of most their fans through the thick and thin of GNR.

Those other guys that help start the band?  Yeah not so much.  And who really gives a fuck that they were in a band that you would have never heard of because they couldn't give a fuck enough to do what needed to be done.  They are an after note.  And I can't speak for the man but I would think Axl doesn't give a fuck about those other guys either.

The issue is that when you call Slash, Duff and Adler original or founding GN`R members you have people telling you that you`re wrong. That is was not the case at all.

I personally  will always call them original. And when people tells me I`m wrong. I`m gonna ignore them. And I`m gonna ignore those who call Tracii, Ole and Rob original.

So we  can call them whatever we feel like it.

Like I've said, never paid a lot of attention to what Tracii Guns has done in his career. I think I heard him on some GN'R tribute albums over a decade ago.
So I have no real interest in what he does.

But, once again, I like to stick to facts. When I see people repeating something that obviously isn't true, I'll point it out.


Some get all worked up when there's a discussion about the band's history. So now people who didn't start the band, are apparently original founders. I guess that also makes every line up of the band original and its members founding members..... :)  :hihi:

Yes, I get it, the Appetite line up was the band most of us got to know and love, yes I get that they made the band successful and known. Yes, yes, yes.... That hasn't been up for debate.

Would you say Bruce Dickinson is the original founding singer of Iron Maiden? How about Brian in AC/DC? Kirk in Metallica? The list goes on...



/jarmo

No I get it.  But it's just seems like my two sons arguing about non sense.  "Yes is it" "No it isn't" ect ect ect. 

I think the real problem is that some people would only argue this point to diminish the "classic" line ups influence on the band.  I whole heartedly believe that most people would not take this stance if the "classic" band was still together or if they didn't have the issues that they have (or had if you believe the rumors) with each other.

Metallica is actually very similar to Guns N Roses even down to the time frame. Lars started the band, first recruiting James Hetfield... shortly after recording a single for a compilation album with a few other musicians James and Lars went out and recruited Dave Mustaine in late 1982 because he had expensive guitar equipment (Lars picked the name Metallica (with a friend) and the compilation single was wrongly listed as Metallica on the album) They play a few months of shows with their first bass player (can't remember his name). They then went to a show at the Whiskey and saw Cliff Burton and began to recruit him. That cemented the lineup, they then played their first show in March of 1983, Dave was kicked out of the band on April 11, 1983. He was then replaced by Kirk on the same day. From here they went on to record 'Metal up your Ass' which later became the first official release 'Kill Em All'...

There are members who were there at the start, fell away within the span of a year, then got replaced with what will always be recognized as 'The Original Lineup'... For Example, bass is Metalica's version of guitar in GNR's story (except not nearly as member rich)... People always compare and contrast Cliff, Jason, and Rob... no one adds Ron McGovney (I had to look him up) to that conversation. It's the same for Tracii, Rob Gardner, and Ole...

The common take on Metallica is Lars and Lars alone 'founded' the band, then he went and found 'players' for that band. A lot of stories, articles, etc... list Axl and Izzy as the founders of the band then they added musicians they had worked with in the past, then within a year (really 2-3 months) settled on the lineup that became the band everyone knows.

Dave Mustaine, Ron McGovney, Tracii Guns, Rob Gardner, and Ole Beich were there first... history proves that, however popular history often forgets that. The exception is probably Dave Mustaine, everyone knows he was there first and that is because Dave went on to a band that is very well known. Where the other 4 are pretty much unknown outside of Tracii and LA Guns which are really not that well known outside of Hollywood. I think that has a lot to do with them being dropped off.

No, if the classic lineup were still together the fact would remain that 3 members joined a pre-existing band.

Nobody is trying to diminish or discount a thing, since when is stating the honest truth a "stance"?

Has nothing to do with issues, importance or popularity- it is simply the real history and it is the truth.

Whether the original members are popular or not, honestly doesn't change a thing.

The history is the history regardless of who tries to deny it or who gets upset that their favorite lineup weren't the originals.

I prefer actual facts and reality.

I've pointed out a number of times that I wasn't discrediting anybody's input over the years in GN'R. Everybody who's been in the band has been there for a reason and they contributed something. I wasn't trying to diminish anything.

When you state the fact that the band started with different people than who made it the worldwide success it became, it's not taking anything way from what they did. How could it?



/jarmo

That is true but would you feel the need to correct someone at every turn or in general just have a pissing match about it?

I never said you did.  I said some!

I see it slightly different. 

I think this point is argued to put the best possible spin on the clusterfuck this operation has been for 15 years.

You shouldn't have a problem with all the turnover, because, hey...Slash wasn't an original member.

You shouldn't have a problem accepting this line-up as Guns N' Roses, because...hey, by the time of the UYI tour it was already different than what you knew.

That sort of thing.

Other People/Kids Says:

LineUp UYI Tour Is Original GNR

 :rofl: :hihi: :rofl:

See what I mean?

No worries, just clarifying. :)


I think the whole concept is confusing to some.
They love one particular line up so much, and then discredit the others. So when somebody points out to them that "their" line up wasn't the original one, it just bothers them.




/jarmo

Things Of Boys, Boys, Boys

 :smoking:

Jarmo ... I beg of you ...

If there is ever a reunion concert .. You MUST go up to Slash and Duff backstage and tell them they are not original members and take a Video of their reaction.

Lol

Hahahaha.

Well, Slash even writes about it in his book.... Even mentions Tracii being there from the start!  :hihi:


Edited to add, from his book: My memory is hazy on the various events that led to the forming of Guns N? Roses, because, to be honest, for most of it I wasn?t there.


/jarmo

Kick Ass

 :hihi: :rofl: :hihi:

Slash refers to them as the original members. :-X

"I'm not bored with the fascination with [GUNS N' ROSES music]. What I'm bored with is all the brouhaha with stuff the media have no idea what they are talking about.. the causing of unnecessary conflict between the original members. It's just a lot of drama and sensationalism ? everyone is trying to capitalize on that. I'm sick of it."

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/slash-blames-media-for-causing-unnecessary-conflict-between-original-guns-n-roses-members/

Just to be clear..... Once again.

Most of the world refers to the AFD5 as the original band. We all know that.
Why's that? Because they don't care for all the details.

Now, you're currently on a GN'R fan site. That should kinda give you a hint of the level of knowledge of others who are here.
This very site has a special section dedicated to the history of the band. It's like a timeline where you can read all kinds of things that happened and when they happened.

It would be very weird for me to argue, like some of you, that what's written there is in fact totally wrong and they were the super duper original founders of a band.


You're free to believe in whatever the fuck you want. If you wanna believe that Slash started Guns N' Roses, fine. If you wanna believe in the tooth fairy, go ahead.
But, and this is a big but, if you come here and expect support for your wrong facts, you're not gonna get it. :)




The bottom line is, nobody gets upset when you refer to the old band as the original band. It's a popular opinion, even though technically it's not 100% true. But, if you come here and start arguing about it, you're arguing with people who might've done their homework on the band's history and it just makes you look a bit ignorant. And this is exactly what some of you are doing. Arguing about it. It's fucking amusing, there's facts and you don't care, you still argue.

So, keep trying to rewrite history. It's going well for you isn't it? You've almost changed it already.... :D



/jarmo

Just to be clear...I didn't say Slash started Guns N' Roses, not rewriting history at all.  :)



Some of you do get upset when people are referring to the old band as the original band, read the thread.  Arguing with those who have that opinion.

Aw, so one thing's clear, you like to argue about silly things.  :-X



/jarmo

I posted a quote from Slash.  You're the one who argued with it.  ;)

Yes..... Exactly. And so on. And so on.




/jarmo

Didn't Marc Canter say that Axl had a few songs that he wanted Slash to play on in the early 00's, if he apologized publicly or something?  I guess it's possible that those tracks didn't end up on Chinese.  Who knows? I don't.

Who gives a shit what Marc Canter said? Honestly. If Slash or Axl says it, I will/may listen. Too many people always playing detective, putting words in people's mouths, creating fantasy scenarios about what "might" have happened, yada yada with no fucking idea what the actual truth is. It is boring and tiresome. The whole thing is boring and tiresome at this point.

Gnr has no tour dates scheduled and no album release date scheduled.

Sky Dog is over the speculation and petty disputes among fans. Happy Trails! I am going to see Willie Nelson tonight...Whiskey River take my mind!  :peace:

It isn't a pissing match or even an interesting debate, it is stupid that some are so upset and in denial about what actually happened in the history of GNR.

It is even dumber when someone says "I'm going to call what I want original" You can call blue red, but that doesn't make it an actuality- it just means you are ignorant about the truth either willingly or otherwise.

Most people consider the players on a band?s debut album as the original lineup.
That is why the media and most people consider Axl, Slash, Izzy, Duff and Steven to be the original lineup.

That said, it?s true that a lineup consisting of Tracci, Ole and Gardner predates AFD.
So it?s not wrong to consider them the originals.

It brings the ?if a tree falls in the woods? expression to mind though.
It makes for an interesting trivia question, and not a whole lot else.

The lineup that made an impact was Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy and Steven.

Before them? Crickets.
Since them? Countdown to the reunion.

Don't tell that to Matt Sorum....



/jarmo

Correct.

And for all the people that want to breathlessly bring up Matt, Dizzy, or Gilby...you are right.  Most probably can't name them and don't consider them GNR when asked what the first image that pops into their head is.

But I'd probably also argue most folks would have a tough time getting Steven's name is asked to recall it on demand.  Duff and Izzy, they probably picture for sure, might whiff on a name though.

Guns N' Roses to most folks is Axl and Slash.  Even if we hardercore fans feel that shortchanges Izzy.  Or how we have to take a second and bow our heads to acknowledge Tracii Guns.

Doesn't matter, ultimately.  Guns N' Roses to most folks is Axl and Slash.  This will never change.

You could build 100 websites and libraries with plenty of facts, details and technicalities. That won?t change how people feel and what people believe.

I will not give credit where credit is not due. Tracii, Ole and Rob meant nothing or very Little in the bans`s history. So it is fair to say that Slash, Duff and Steven are original GN`R

If some of us use the words original GN`R when it comes to Axl, Slash, Izzy, Duff and Steven we don`t need the fact checking police squad going after us. We should be left alone. That`s all

Funny I could argue that it is a fact that Tommy left the band. And yet there are fans claiming that Tommy didn`t leave. Maybe those people have a crystal ball and they know everything related to Tommy?s life.

Then those people have the nerve to say they are all about facts??? Hilarious!!!

AJjajAJAjjAJ, gREAT

 :peace:

Slash and Co may not have been a part of the original "NAME" of Guns N Roses, but as far as music goes, and last I checked, bands MAKE music, they are original members of the MUSICAL group Guns N Roses that actually did shit musically. so therefore I will always consider them the Originals and those other guys are kind of a technicality, more of a footnote.
Cause I can pretty much guarantee, If GNR had stayed  Gardner, Ole, Tracii and whomever else... This website or none of us would be on here arguing about it.

What is hilarious is those that struggle to perpetuate a myth even when confronted with the truth.

Nobody is arguing who was more popular, or who contributed more- the point is that Slash, Duff and Steven joined a pre-existing group. Nothing can change that fact and aspect of GNR history, period.

The discussion has nothing to do with Tommy at all, but nice attempt to deflect and distract.

I disagree with all that. Once those 3 left, it seized even being a group. Because Axl used the same name, in no way makes it the SAME group. Had THOSE guys written songs on appetite, and Slash Duff etc came in and PLAYED their songs... Yes.. I'd call them original members, but since no music from that group was used... The GNR featuring the AFD lineup is in fact the ORIGINAL band.

Nobody is arguing popularity or contributions- the actual history of GNR won't change because some find it inconvenient.

You can consider anything you want but that doesn't mean it's factually correct.

Read my post above your last one.

Nope, nothing changes the fact that Slash, Duff and Steven joined a pre-existing group. No excuse or straw man arguments will change that one iota.

It is the truth, even if not popular and not known or supposedly accepted by many that prefer the myths and are in denial.

Nothing changes the actual history and you aren't entitled to invent your own facts.

Didn't you call them founding members earlier?

They meant enough to be there for the naming of the band......




/jarmo

History can be interpreted in many different ways too. I don't think people are inventing their own facts here, they are just pointing out something I thought we all agreed on; GNR original members are the ones who wrote, performed and recorded the music of their first album.

In my opinion Emily, you try very hard to discredit Slash, Duff and Steven at every chance you got. It seems to me like you've got some kind of ulterior motive to downgrade Slash's (and Duff and Steven) contributions to this band's artistic and commercial success. Really, why is it so hard to give credit when credit is due?

I had to go back to the GNR history on this very same site to check the so-called facts. Honest question, aren't you confused with the multiple line-up changes all the bands leading to GNR had? I sure am. Yes, it's true the name Guns N' Roses was decided on March 26th and the members then were Axl, Izzy, Tracii, Ole and Gardner. Does that make them the original members ?

One things is for sure, after checking this band's history this is what stands out the most: There were more line-up changes pre-GNR than post GNR!

History with this band, as with everything else regarding our favorite group, it's quite unique. Please check the numerous line-up changes the other bands had during the previous year. We have Hollywood Rose, then The New Hollywood Rose (with Slash and Steven), LA GUNS, then Hollywood Rose reunites again, then go back to LA Guns again with Tracii, then it's finally Guns N' Roses. 

Slash, Duff and Steven re-joined Axl and Izzy once the band had decided its name. Does it mean it was already a "band" per se? As far as I know, Tracii didn't even show up to rehearsal, so he wasn't involved..., I don't know what happened with Ole and Gardner though...were they fired? or they just walk away?

If you want to be picky, the original members could also feature Chris Webber, Johnny Kreiss, Steven Darrow... in one way or another, all these multiple line-up changes lead to the ultimate line-up that would record the songs of the biggest and most successful debut album ever made. Guns N' Roses with Tracii, Ole and Gardner didn't last more than 3 months.  If you consider them original members because one day Axl said .."hey, let's name this band Guns N' Roses.., you dig it guys?", "Sure Axl, let's get more wine man, ok?" and that makes them in your eyes "the originals", whatever floats your boat, Emily.

If you have a team, who start the season. The results are not that good. Somebody gets traded,. Players are therefore replaced. Then at the end of the season, the team eventually wins the championship.

So it's fair to say the players of the team who started the season are insignificant?


For the umpteenth time, I'm not trying to start a Tracii Guns fan club here or discredit anything the AFD5 did.
But when you have a linear history, taking something out of the equation, means the end result might be different. For example, maybe the only things Tracii and the others contributed were the origin of the name and quitting in order to leave an open spots for others, who then helped the band become what we all got to know later on.

This is basically what some are doing. Claiming certain people were insignificant, not important and so on.

Isn't this what some say about Steven Adler, for example? That AFD could've been a hit album with a different drummer? Clearly, this way of thinking that you can take somebody, or some members, out of the equation can be applied to other (former) members of the band as well. Does that bother you? Of course it does, you don't like when people that say those kinds of things. But you're doing the same exact thing yourself in order to "protect" your favorite members.




/jarmo

I was talking about two foundation. Take for example New York. The Dutch not the British got there first. Yet the British got there later. And it became a British colony.  That doesn`t change the fact that New York was one of 13 original British colonies despite the fact that the Dutch were there before. And in New York everyone knows about the Dutch and their State flag has one orange bar because of the Dutch.

I think this is pretty much the case with GN`R

And again people are very concerned about this fact but no so much with other facts like the Tommy status in the band

Yeah, Tommy is also a founding original member!  :hihi:



/jarmo

Don`t play smart ass. You know what I meant with the Tommy example

You mean original founding smart ass?  :D




/jarmo

I'm well aware of GNR history, have been a GNR fan since late 80's, no kid here, not confused about a thing- nice attempt at condescension.

I like facts and reality- the actual history of the group easily shows that Slash, Duff and Steven joined a pre-existing group-
Period.

I don't think actual history is open to interpretation.

I'm sorry that upsets you, and I'm sorry you are in denial but if you look at actual GNR history and stick to facts you can clearly see this is true, beyond any shadow of a doubt.

I'm not saying they were more popular, I'm not saying that they contributed more, those are ridiculous arguments-
I'm also not attempting to discredit anyone- nice misinterpretation.

The fact remains that 3 members joined a pre-existing group that included Axl and Izzy- so I look at them as the founders in all reality- but you feel free to go with whatever fantasy floats your boat Ignatius.

No, what's hilarious is that people like you pointlessly bring up subjects that nobody gives a damn about.  The fans who say Slash, Axl, Steven, Duff, and Izzy are the original members of Guns N Roses are NOT trying to rewrite history....

THEY JUST DON'T CARE!

And THAT is the point that YOU can't get through your head!

For the last 28 years, I've referred to Axl, Slash, Steven, Duff, and Izzy as the ORIGINAL lineup.  I'll spend the next 28 years doing the same thing.  Not because I am ignorant of Rob Gardner, Tracii Guns, or the late Ole Beich, but....

BECAUSE I DON'T GIVE A FUCK!   :P

Your attempts at "correcting" people are abrasive, condescending, and ultimately ineffectual for the reasons I just gave you.  The only point you're proving is that you don't have anything better to do than offer pedantic lectures on the technical meaning of the word "original".

Nobody cares what existed before Appetite.  People see THAT as the beginning of Guns N Roses because that was the beginning of their love affair with Guns N Roses.  THAT'S IT.  THAT'S THE WAY IT IS!  NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE REST!

Except of course, for people like you who love to pick fights and senselessly bludgeon everybody else about the meaning of the word "original".


Actually Emily, it isn't a misinterpretation.

First of all, without the internet, nobody would remember or care that anybody prior to the Appetite lineup had anything to do with Guns N Roses.

Secondly, the overwhelming majority of people who mention Tracii, Ole, or Rob are indeed doing so to discredit Slash, Duff, and Steven.  How so?  Because there is absolutely no point or purpose to even mention their names otherwise.  They contributed NOTHING to Guns N Roses.  Ole Beich only played ONE SHOW.  Tracii and Rob barely lasted longer than that.  The only manner of mentioning these guys is to discredit Duff, Steven, and Slash.... most people use it as a means of defending Axl's revolving door lineups.  You know, "Buckethead wasn't an original member?  Oh yeah??  Well don't you know SLASH wasn't an original member either???   :P

BUT...... if you want to throw around the words "facts", "reality", and "history", I got some for ya!   : ok:

1. Axl, Slash, Duff, Steven, and Izzy signed with Geffen Records on March 26, 1986..... thus making THEM the FIRST and ORIGINAL lineup of Guns N Roses from a LEGAL standpoint.

2. Axl, Slash, Duff, Steven, and Izzy wrote all the ORIGINAL Guns N Roses songs together in their shitbox rehearsal space in Hollywood.  This includes modifying any existing material (namely "Anything Goes") that existed before the five of them were together.

3. Axl, Slash, Duff, Steven, and Izzy were the FIRST and ORIGINAL five members to record under the Guns N Roses' name; doing so on the ORIGINAL Guns N Roses releases, Live! Like A Suicide and later Appetite for Destruction.

4. History also tells us Axl, Slash, Duff, Steven, and Izzy became the ORIGINAL five guys that defined the name GUNS N ROSES, regardless of who briefly performed under the GNR banner at a few shows in 1985.  To this day, no GNR lineup before or after has ever defined Guns N Roses more than the Appetite lineup.  They are the ones that ORIGINALLY drove the spirit and music of Guns N Roses into the fans' hearts.

And those are the manners by which the majority of fans define the word "ORIGINAL".  They don't use mindless technicalities, and THAT is a "reality".   : ok:



No, actually Axl claims HE alone named the band.  Tracii Guns of course disputes that, but if we assume Axl is telling the truth, then consider his past comments where he claims that he named the band, and had agreements with everybody else that he would keep the name if they broke up.  Axl went on to say that bands broke up all the time and they knew they might break up next week.  So based on Axl's assertions about the name origins, I'd say the others guys didn't mean much at all in terms of "being there for the name".  They could've been anybody -- but the Appetite lineup couldn't have.  The name didn't mean anything until they gave it meaning.



Yeah, "Some People" say that.... and Slash, Duff, and Izzy are NOT among them.  Those 3 guys have gone on record giving Steven HUGE amounts of credit for the success of Appetite.  Just read Slash's book, Duff's book, and Izzy comments in Guitar World in November 1992.

Upset much? :D

1.)Nothing you have said changes the fact that GNR existed before Slash, Duff, and Steven joined.

2.)I mentioned nothing about more popular, lasted longer, contributed more or any other absolutely ridiculous point you attempt to drag in.

3.)Absolutely nobody is arguing about what lineup got signed, nor attempting to discredit anyone. Straw man argument.

I'm very aware of GNR history, but thank you for attempting to educate me-  :hihi:

I especially like this line-

"First of all, without the internet, nobody would remember or care that anybody prior to the Appetite lineup had anything to do with Guns N Roses."

Total and absolute rubbish, it may amaze you that some of us actually read books- shocker eh?  : ok:

Yeah, but what I said was, they were there when the band was named. Not that Rob or Ole named it. Sorry for the confusion. :)

I've lost count on how many times I've pointed out that I never made claims that the people who were there when the band was founded had a bigger, or even equal role, in the band's history as the ones who recorded AFD. Yet, some of you keep going on and on about it...

For the record, stating that five guys started a band called Guns N' Roses does not in any shape or form mean that what two of those guys achieved with three other guys, is worth any less.
So, you can keep repeating all that "the name meant nothing until Duff, Slash and Steven made the band what it became" routine until the day after the end of time. Nobody made any other claims.

Some fans on a fan site just pointed out the actual history of the band we're fans of, instead of acknowledging the facts, some keep repeating the same old "it was nothing". Yeah, it wasn't much, it was an unknown band with a cool name.... A name they decided to stick with instead of changing it back to the New Hollywood Rose, or something.




Certain fans.
I read the books, don't worry. Ironically Slash's book talks about how GN'R started.... :)


Those insignificant guys are even mentioned on Wikipedia. How upsetting is that? I mean, nobody cares right?



/jarmo

I think an appropriate comparison would be The Beatles where Pete Best and Stuart Sutcliffe were original Beatles as Ole, Tracii and Rob were original Gunners, but they didn't go on to become the Fab 4 the way Tracii and the others didn't go on to become the AFD 5 and cement Guns' as a household name.

Some people here need to get a fucking life. Seriously...

Yeah, nobody's taken anything away from the so called classic line up of the band. Just pointed out facts.... And yet this is argued like it's not factual and incorrect!

Arguing about facts. 
"I don't care about facts, they didn't form the band because I don't want to believe in that!"... Ok...  :D



/jarmo

Holy shit, D is back....welcome back dude. 

Nothing you say will change the fact that the majority of fans don't give a shit that "GNR existed" before Slash, Duff, and Steven joined.

Like I said, I'm gonna keep calling them original members just as I have for the last 3 decades, and it's not because I'm unaware of Ole Beich, Tracii Guns, or Rob Gardner.  It's because I don't care!  When I heard Appetite for Destruction, I didn't care who performed in one or two freaking shows under the GNR banner before that.  The lineup that was right there in front of me is all I ever needed to care about.  Everybody who watched their ferociously energetic show at the Ritz in 1988, as well the MTV VMA performance in '88 didn't care about the definition of original.  But I suppose you would've waded through the crowd at those shows and tried to educate and correct everybody there who thought it was the original lineup.   :hihi:


Whooooa boy is there some hypocrisy found in THAT statement!  You do NOTHING but attempt to correct and "educate" people with every single frivolous effort to antagonize people with your "pre-existing lineup" bullshit.  All the while, ignoring the point I've made above.  Fans don't claim Slash, Steven, and Duff were original members because those fans are ignorant of GNR history -- or living in a fantasy world, as you like you claim.  It's because people don't care about any of that bullshit.  They care about the lineup they fell in love with!  It's that simple, and nothing YOU say will ever change the way people look at it!


It isn't insulting to merely acknowledge them.  It's insulting to get assaulted by this meaningless "argument" about the definition of the word original.  Emily of course completely ignored my overall point that when people refer to the Appetite lineup as the original lineup, it's not because they're ignorant, delusional, or necessarily trying to "favor" a particular lineup.  People refer to the Appetite lineup as the original 5 members for the very good and very accurate reasons I listed already.

And as somebody else pointed out above, nobody needs to be badgered by message board cops raising the names Ole Beich, Tracii Guns, and Rob Gardner every single time we refer to the Appetite lineup as the original lineup.  It would be one thing if you just talked about them.  But it seems the only time their names are ever raised is when someone feels the need to "correct" someone who used the word "original" to describe the Appetite lineup.  There is NO reason to ever do that except to discredit that lineup or to just plain start a fight, because I strongly doubt that ANYBODY on this board is unaware that Rob, Tracii, or Ole existed under a GNR banner for one or two shows.

Not knocking any1's musicianship, but the facts remain; gnr was something Axl lived by long before it became a corporate product.

Edit:
I still listen to obscure music (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS9pLN02rzs). The majority is always wrong and the indvidual is above teh rest. tnx

There's no need to point out actual facts and correct those who might be wrong? Especially on a fan site with fans who you assume know how the band started?

Instead of those who keep referring to the AFD line up as the founding original band, saying "ok, I see, you're right", they get upset and refuse. Then go on and on about how the band was nothing etc etc etc. Why?

Again, and again, I got no problems with whatever line up you prefer. I don't really care what Tracii Guns has done before or after he was in GN'R.
But none of that changes the fact that he was there when my favorite band started. If I kept saying otherwise, I'd be ignoring the facts... Makes no sense!

In this case, there's not even two different versions of the event.
So you don't even have that reason to not believe in it....

It's like Santa Claus? We shouldn't point out that some of you are wrong because you'll get upset and cry when you find out Santa Claus isn't real?



/jarmo



PS Santa Claus is real. I met him last summer......

Can't we all just say everybody's favorite gnr lineup which is the AFD/UYI lineup with all due respect to steven adler I don't think most gnr fans care who plays drums because its almost split as to who peope in here would want on drums its like bass position in metallica which has had cliff, Jason and Rob its the rest of the guys Axl, Slash and duff I think most would like to see if a reunion were to happen. I leave out izzy only because if he wants to be all in for then of course they should have him but if he just wants to do a few shows here and there I say let Richard be the rhythm guy.

If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong :D

You can call them whatever you want, but that doesn't mean you are historically correct.

Again, sorry you are sooo upset by this but facts are facts and all your attempts to justify why the AFD lineup is original won't make it so.

Nobody, nobody is arguing that the AFD lineup wasn't more popular and didn't contribute more- you can rattle off all the shows you want and it will still be a straw man argument against something Nobody said.

Nobody, nobody is trying to discredit anyone period.

You have your panties in a twist because I'm saying that 3 members of the Appetite lineup joined a pre-existing band- how is that historical fact so disturbing?

A lie doesn't become truth because it is inconvenient, unpopular or accepted by a majority.  :-*

wow, we drifted off topic a bit  :hihi: 

I couldn't deal with reading every post, but here's my 2cents

to answer the original question. Yes, I think it's possible, IF of course, Axl made a new GNR album with Slash and Duff,  that some of the CD era songs could be included. I think we'd see more of a UYI type album, where you had rockers blended in with some complex and philosophical songs. I don't think you'd see a situation where Slash and Duff are going to re-record parts of finished CD songs. I think they would want to approach the said record as a new project. Slash and Duff write fast.... I'm sure it would be a mixed bag. Of course I didn't mention Izzy, If he is there, than god bless that too. I don't think the old members are going to simply fall in line and continue with the current vibe of GNR and act as nothing more than replacements for DJ,Ron, or Tommy. Anyone holding out for that, than good luck with that.  :hihi:

The Appetite line up was the first to release an album/publish music, and was the first line up recognized by the world as Guns N' Roses. The previous line up didn't leave much behind at all. While they may be technically the first, they didn't do enough that we have to stop and explain this to everyone when they say classic or original  GNR. Why are we even having this discussion? GNR would be nowhere without the lighting in a bottle the AFD line up captured. It's not going to happen like that ever again. They are all brilliant musicians, I prefer Axl's music to theirs, but they are no doubt all great.

 

Yes, this thread has been hijacked with the very old, and very cliche, "who are guns and roses" argument. ANYWAY...my original question is,simply this... does anyone think axl has anything in the vault he hast released, or maybe even hasn't RECORDED, because he's holding it to possibly collaborate on with izzy, slash, or duff?

I guess it is because your theory is really odd to say the least. The first time Axl spoke about CD was 2001! Now you are saying that CD 2 was not released because Axl has the "brilliant" idea of remaking that album with Slash, Duff, Izzy and Adler or Sorum.

Sooooo this forum has been repoblated with Gnr Reunion topics, and none of them has been deleted.Sooooo that confirms that anyhing is going to happen

I think the mods, even Jarmo, see that everything in GNR's future is, at best, ambiguous at this point.  I think a reunion is just as likely as a new album or tour.  Why delete it?

I should delete it because that's what I'm supposed to do?

Some really have zero to no clue.... :)




/jarmo

I will be very happy to hear a new GNR song in whatever capacity it is presented. :beer:

Hey Norway, I was just in Norway on a Disney Frozen adventure. What's your opinion on LET IT GO?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gctyZxidE8 ?

I don't think I understand...


I do.
Matt (why the hell was he even inducted) slows down the music and plays it very rigidly while Steven is more playfull and groovy.  I think Matt really shines at DTJ tho.

I also notice how some of 'garden of eden' versevocals might be recorded in a diferent room/day, how Axl changed the way he sings 'thunder' from 06 and out, that it seems they started to use a pre-recorded crowd-roar (LAME AS HELL!!!) on wttj from 09-tour, how Frank plays the start of NR-outro exorable instead of martial, a new axl-scream on omg, and Brain's solid and hard-hitting playing-style.

'most gnr fans' define fan :P specially intrested?

musiclovers (people w special intrest) will notice Brian May plays on a version of catcher with just listening while regular music-consumptionists wont.

 
As a fan, all incarnations are valid and original means original. I personally like 02-lineup most while others prefer afd/90's lineup.



It (reunion) is wishfull thinking, unlike logical anticipation for the upcoming album. We just need a little a lot of patience...and coffee :coffee:




Sounds a bit as reunion-paranoia but yes. He probably has stuff that is more suitable for classic guns.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPv7DRq9saY He plays there w Nikki Sixx in Brides of Destruction.

The playstyle is more like Mick Mars than the far more bluesy Slash.





Santa apparantly has pagan origin, then it was christianized and then americanized. Like Halloween.



*wonders if inspired this part*

was just gonna take a quick peek on the forum and then 3 fucking posts in a row... i have 2 get out of here :nervous: 


Yeah, I agree.

They would also have to be under contract by Axl as the name is legally his. Don't know how well that will sit due to the lawsuits and all.


The first who got mainstream recognition worldwide you mean? Cause people in the world obviously recognized Traci and Axl as GunsN'Roses back then.



Songs with Hollywood Rose-roots features on Live like a suicide (fuck if I spell it correct) and AFD.


 
And?


AFD line up would be nowhere without the lighting in the bottle bands like road crew, rapid fire (amongst others) captured.

 :P




Dunno, it is indeed factually incorrect to refer to afd-line up as original gnr. End of discussion?

Marc Canter has said Axl wanted Slash on 2-3 Chinese Democracy songs around 2000/2001, so the theory really isn't that odd.

I know what Marc has said. Slash as a guest on GN`R album. It is a bit odd. But when someone says that Axl hasn`t released CD II because he wants not only Slash but everyone from the old band to make an entire album recording a bunch of songs that other people wrote that`s just ridiculous.

If Axl wants a new album with the old band then they have to write new songs.

Besides we don`t know what happened with the so called CDII. Axl said back in 2001 that they were making it. However since then all we know about CD II is a bunch of titles. The only full song we have heard is Going Down.

I would not give any credence to anything Marc Canter has to say about anything.  Truth!

There probably won't be a reunion album. I'm sure there will a few reunion shows, then after the reunion, guns n roses will take off where it ended in 2014 with 2 new guitarist, release CD2, tour etc.

That's played out. I would be small clubs like 2k people

I know this is a late reply but - I actually feel Slash just contributing solos is the best option for all parties. If it was Izzy I'd feel different. However if Slash is to be involved in any new GNR recordings I'd prefer he just lay down solos. He's a so-so songwriter; solos are what he's great at. Coming in and adding them to existing songs plays to his strength.

He wouldn't paste slashs cover over CD2 songs becuase he doesn't play that style. That's why he left gnr...

that would be a total slap in the face to what amazing work bucket/Robin have already written. Slash could play them live but atleast have the writers on the album.

All unreleased songs are subject to change and will depend on what the people in the room decide to do with them, and then they'll deal with the credits if and when they release the songs. It's hard to say with Buckethead because there seemed to be mutual bad feelings when he left and Bucket refused to sign copies of CD in the past, hopefully he'll just show up one night at a show and surprise the hell out of everyone.

Was it not a slap in the face when Axl used Bumbles work over previous artists?  Was it not a slap in the face when he didn't use Brian Mays work?  So on and so on.  I don't think Axl is too worried about using whatever he thinks is the best. 

yes, it was a slap in the face. I don't think slash or any other former member will be a official to stay member of the band. I think just for a reunion. I highly doubt anything will happen.

And what happen with brain may and Ron, that was one song. Id be pissed off if brain wrote and played every CD solo, then have Bumblefoot cover it for the final work. Same with slash.

Honesty, I don't think the reunion will effect the new album and the current band in anyway

Then again, we are debating shit that may or may not ever happen. Like I said, I don't think slash will effect current GNRS further plans.

Hell, atleast let gnr confirm a reunion before we debate things that may or may not happen.

Yep

Then Brian May in interview saying, he really didn't know why they didn't use his work

Did all the over dubs just come down to money?

Hey you want to be in my band, I really don't want to pay you lots, but if you record some things on this album you will get some royalties   

Sure that was some of it

doesnt really sound like that crazy of an idea now, no?

The CD era is over. Get over it.

Axl, Slash, Duff and hopefully Izzy are writing a new GNR chapter now.  :beer:

you think just because axl might not be releasing whatever "chidem2" was supposed to be, that he will just toss all the lyrics and whatever melodies he wrote in the toilet?  they could quite easily use those lyrics for slash/izzy/duff to write music to.  has nothing to do with "CD era".  the songs have never been release or heard by the public, they can be changed to whatever the band wants and none of us would know which "era" they are from. 

You might be right, but I was specifically answering to this message posted on November 15 :

where oh where can our album be
want a follow up to CD
the old band came along and now its unclear
if CD2 is something that well e-e-e-e-ver hear

Of course they could do it. Even if Slash was to only add a guitar solo to a completed song, people would recognise it and embrace it as GNR.

I'd personally prefer to hear the unreleased material in its existing form with Robin etc, but probably unlikely now with such a significant change in the lineup.

Will it really be possible for Axl to continue his vision of new GNR by replacing Slash again?

agreed, slashs presence on cd2 would open peoples minds up to it so much.

That's the thing though - even to an older fan of GNR let alone a casual listener, they won't be concerned with who plays drums or when it was recorded or who wrote the song - when they hear Axl's voice with a Slash solo, that will sound like GNR.

Even to members of forums like this who are more intensive fans of GNR, any new music is going to be new, whether it was recorded in 97 or 07, whether Paul Tobias or Slash plays guitar on it.

my personal reason that I guess many could relate is this:

We were here from the start... watching the "baby" evolve... we're like the impotent uncle, that watches the child grow up... we felt like it was ours... and we wanted the NuGNR to prosper. Its sad to see that the dream is over... and that that elusive prosperous time is now probably for ever gone.

personally, I'd like to hear every bit of recordings by finck and buckethead... since those 2 pervs were the thing that shaped my view of the new band in the first place.

Well Finck and Buckethead did shape the new band after all when the band debuted in 2001. I also really hope to hear more of the material that they recorded. I still go back and watch some of the 2002 performances.

Might be a little off topic, apologies.

Not in the cards or discussion at this point.

I would think that if they are being saved for this lineup, they would wind up being 100% re-recorded (except for vocals that exist possibly). I would not have Duff lay down a second bass track, and you aren't going to make him like the 7th guitar on a track. The other thing is while yes Chinese Democracy is a 'guitar heavy' album, stylistically and tone wise it is a much much different sound than what you will get from Slash... even from a pure 'equipment perspective' Slash's tone doesn't match anything we have heard from the CD Era lineup. Slash has a much creamier bluesy tone, most of his 'crunch' comes from his amp... where the CD lineup (just watch Premier Guitars interviews with Ron, Richard, and DJ) tend to use a lot more effects, and typically (especially on the CD material more than the classic material) have hotter pickups than the Alnico II pickups that Slash has used since his Derrig Les Paul copy back in 1987. This gives the new guys a more biting metal like tone, which works well with the amount of synth that happens in the background with Dizzy and Chris.

The other thing to consider, do you ever want to hear the songs after the album release? If you have songs built primarily off of ideas from Bucket and Robin you are going to get a lot of 'tricks' built into the songs... not sure the reason and or obsession with them, but they each use kill switches on their guitars and use them all of the time. Slash can mimic that sound with  his pickup selector switch, but why? I never understood the point of that sound... The other thing is the 'stunt' solos... Looking at what we think we know about the lineup who would play them live? It isn't Slash's playing style, It really isn't Richards style, and of what I know about Kushner (if he's involved) it really isn't his style... If Bumble had any input or recording time on any tracks (he made it onto CD) than we are definitely going to get his fretless guitar... who does that?

I would think that any new music we get is going to either be completely new, or tweaked by and totally re-recorded by this line up... unless it is released as a 'Thank You' to the old era and packaged/marketed as such.

I'm sure between Axl, Slash, Duff and whoever else might be involved there are ideas, concepts, completed songs, melodies, riffs, lyrics, and all sorts of shit that could be pieced together into some sort of a record in the not too distant future.

I see little to no reason on why would Slash's tone not fit into the mix. It would sound different for sure, but I think it would work just fine just like Bumble's more crunchy tone and riffy rhythm worked on Chinese Democracy.

Robin didn't use killswitch on the record, that's all Bucket. I think it's amazing, but it's just a resource for the sound. What's the difference between using a killswitch and a bottleneck for slide? Both are just resources to add to the regular guitar sound. There's no point to be made.

Also, Slash doesn't need to use the same technique. I'm sure he would use a different approach of his own.

Again, no need to have the same approach. Slash can use his own style. Also, Richard is actually capable to pull off some shredding if it's needed.

I agree with absolutely everything you are saying (except for the kill switch thing, still don't get it)... what I am envisioning is having to listen to Robin, Bucket, and Bumble rump swabs complain when Slash does't play it note for note (sound for sound) just like the Slash people did when Robin or DJ took very slight liberties with a Slash solo. The music isn't out, so like a tree in the woods, does it exist if no one hears it.

This has been my argument all along with not releasing or waiting to release CDII because it will eventually cause confusion inside and outside of the rabid fan base. 'We' will complain (not all of us) when a song is left off a setlist because Slash for example just doesn't want to play it, or Rolling Stone will make a crack at the falling dominoes list of players on the album just further pointing out the fractured history of the CD Era.

If the CD Era is truly dead... than bury it.

If this is a one time tour, wait till it is over then start to flood the market with Beatles and TuPac like EP's of material every few years from all generations of the band.

If this is going to be a functioning band why not kick them off with their own material, and sprinkle some existing CD era stuff live. It's not like you are adding quitar players 10 and 11 to the constantly revolving CD Era line up... This is Slash and Duff, and with Slash you are getting a guitar god... sure are some of the CD ear player more technically proficient? Absolutely, but non are more marketable than Slash, so why release an album with potentially the following guitar players: Paul, Bucket, Robin, Richard, Ron, DJ, Slash, (Izzy, Kushner) 

I know everyone says 'why does it matter who's on the record, why does it matter who wrote the songs, pop stars sing other people songs all the time' Do you think no one would notice if Led Zeppelin started touring this year and they turned on the radio and heard the new Led Zeppelin single and heard a 'Buckethead like' solo then found out that Jimmy Page didn't write any of the songs and only layered a guitar track or two over them?

People want Slash... everyone knows who Slash is. Kids who aren't from that era know who he is from Guitar Hero, or Michael Jackson, or the Black Eye'd peas... they watched him on the Super Bowl, the largest US TV audience (by far) every year. Give them what they want. Then give us what we want from the CD2 library at a more appropriate time.

I understand now what you said. IMHO, maybe it's different because Slash was the foundation of the original GNR sound and, just like you said, he's more popular, so people will be more likely to accept whatever changes he does. I'm talking about live performances.

About unreleased recordings, you're right. Nobody knows it, so it wouldn't matter.

The existing live stuff I think gets trimmed to what fits Slash and the really bucket influenced stuff like Shacklers, Scraped, and Sorry probably don't get played much.

I more mean that IMO CD2 is either totally reworked and re-recorded with the reformed lineup, or it is shelved until a more appropriate time... and shelved is probably the wrong word for it. I think today would be as good a time as ever to release it, but I think it should follow some major live appearance, like a Fallon, Colbert, or Kimmel where he thanks the CD era lineup and the fans that stuck with him and GnR then launches it that day on iTunes as a sort of farewell to an era album. Sell it in 2 flavors CD 2 and CD Era deluxe edition with the remixed CD 1 tracks... but really set the expectation  that this is not who you are seeing in April or a Summer Tour etc...

Then let the reformed lineup build their brand with new tracks (if those are on the way)... I think the inclusion of Duff (a former equal and pretty business savvy guy) can give Axl the kick in the ass he needs to not only record new material in a reasonable amount of time, but to 'complete' and release it quickly as well. The 'hired hand' organization of the CD Era didn't really give anyone the 'pull' to give Axl that kick in the ass.

Not to butt in, but....I think having Duff on board has other benefits, too.  His business savy will be VERY helpful in dealing with the label, IMHO.

This probably won't be a popular opinion, but I'd love to hear Slash on Silkworms, both on a recording, and live.  Really think he would absolutely tear it up.  Something along the lines of a "synthier" version of Perfect Crime if Slash got his hands on it.

I'd love to hear a finished version of this song - but would have to say that this is the type of song I envision Slash having a line in the sand that he won't cross on...

Same here.

Its just not the kind of music he makes.

Haha! Slash add some solo to cd2.. Not in this lifetime. Silkworms will not fit in if they gonna make a new album.. I hope that they will write real rock songs this time. No more Robin style... Thank god!

anybody watch that interview with pittman and the german lady? think its recent?

he mentioned that now is not the time or place to release new music because nobody buys it in reference to tool and gnr. it almost sounded like... definitely not happening for a long time. i could be wrong, but thats what it sounded like to me.

He'd tear it up alright. And throw it in the garbage. Can't see a Slash version of Silkworms happening in a million years. That fan mix version is good though.

I didn't see it, but I remember reading about it a couple of years ago.

Here's a totally off the wall idea (that admittedly has little chance of happening but we can dream!).

Given this band - in whatever form it's taken personnel wise - likes to do things a little differently when it comes to releasing new material, whether it be the double album release of illusions or the long wind up then actually quite low key release of Chinese Democracy - how about another double album release...

...The changing phases of G N' R (ignore that as an album(s) title in sure the band can do better)

Album 1, the stuff the band did from the CD era with Robin/BBF/Buckethead/Tommy.
Album 2, new material with Slash/Duff (with Izzy songwriting contributions if you want to go for the ultimate dream scenario).

I wouldn't even want to try and go through the legal ramifications of all that and if the returning members would be cool with it but it would be the ultimate in G N' R music that would satisfy fans from every era although how it would appeal to the more causal Guns or rock fan.

Whilst I'm in the camp of happy to see Slash and Duff back I do think it would be a shame if the material all the other guys worked on never seen the light of day.  Maybe some of it could be reworked with Slash and Duff but I also think there are styles from the previous players that might not work on some material if they were to be be overdubbed by Slash and Duff although as someone else pointed out, without ever hearing it it's nothing more than guesswork.

So, double album please boys, just like Illusions, empty the vaults and make some great new stuff whilst doing it.

That would be of course my dream scenario. Don't see it happening, tho.

There are songs left from the Chinese Democracy sessions. It was once viewed as a multiple album. Some of the more revered songs (big guns) were not released on the album. There is a possibility that some of the songs that were written could end up on the fallow up album to Chinese Democracy (whatever its name is) if there is a fallow up album.

maybe the reunion will generate so much money that not being able to make money off of an album wont be as much of an issue? just wishful thinking here i guess.

Wouldn' t it be fun if the "new" current line up recorded some songs togehter from their separete career after the original line up split?

I would like to hear Duff's songs for example "Who's to blame" and "How to be a man" with Axl on vocals. A coupple of Slash and VR songs aswell, as much as it would be neat to hear re-makes of some chi-dem stuff with Slash and Duff. I mean, as it was speculated earlier Axl were rehearsing "Fall to pieces". It could be a fun album to throw out there to coincide with Coachella?

I am simply wondering if Axl could have held back the songs for what was to be chi dem 2 (or whatever the follow up was going to be) because he wanted to remake them with slash.  I see some people saying that Slash would not re-record robin's parts, and of course, i agree, i am not suggesting that at all.  I am suggesting that only Axl's vocals and lyrics and possible piano melodies would be kept? any guitar melodies/riffs/basslines from former members would be scrapped? and the songs would be remade and re recorded to feature slash and duff's songwriting.  Not that crazy of an idea, and one that seems to be more feasible given the recent turn of events.  This reunion could have possibly been in the cards for the past 2 years or so, so its no stretch at all that the album release was held back for this reason...

Good theory! And it would be great if it indeed turned out that way!

Very plausible theory.  Songs take on many shapes and sizes before they are released for public consumption.  The only time a song is "done" is when it is released to the public.  So in theory "CD 2" could have been recorded and scrapped all together,  or reworked into other songs. They wouldn't be the first band to do this.  Green Day had a completely different record pretty much finished in 2003 that they scrapped at the last minute  to re-recorded everything.  The result was their most critically acclaimed and their second highest selling  record "American Idiot." 

I think it's safe to assume that if Slash and Duff would work on those CD-era songs, the tracks would be remade anyways. But that's not enough for a songwriting credits. Even if you record and write your own instrumental track, the writing credit would still be from Robin or Buckethead because the melody and overall idea would still be from them - unless they completely rebuild the whole track. And if you do that, you would need the rest of the band to rework on their parts too.

If you want to keep the current lineup on the new songs, your theory would work just for the songs already written by Axl, Dizzy, Richard and/or Pitman - and only by them.

If Slash and Duff work on 1999 tracks that have been worked on by multiple lineups and producers and engineers over the years then had new baselines and solos written, can we please have a moment of respectful silence for the poor bastard tasked with compiling the song credits? ;)

Guns is full of songs that are personal to each person.   Where written before other guys came in

Example

Back off bitch

Anything goes

Then there is the personal songs

November rain

It's so easy.


So....

I wouldn't have a problem at all if Axl wants to use some already recoded songs for a future album featuring duff and slash.

However.

I would like to hear some slash and duff songs on this album as well

Cause

That is want guns was really about

Would it be naive to expect them to work on some of the songs (or bits of songs) they were working on before Slash and Duff left in the 90's? Something that got scrapped because of that.

Not naive, actually. Like some guy said in another thread, Richard Fortus last year spoke about working on some tracks which that had Slash's ideas. Maybe it's exactly that stuff from the '90s.

Yep, that interview got me thinking this. And how cool it would be to hear some of that stuff :)

I'd really would like to hear Slash playing Checkmate. :)

It makes more sense that slash and Duff would rework axl's cd2 songs than any other scenario, really. Why would axl record and write brand new songs when he has so many in the vault? Furthermore, a gnr record featuring slash definitely sells more than one without him. Wouldn't be surprised one bit to see an axl/slash/duff (and possibly izzy) chi dem2 album.