the "new" GN'R band: great legacy to carry on, or just a guns cover band????

[Nightrain198704]

what does everyone think?  Is the great name of Guns N' Roses being tarnished because it only has one original member left? Or is it fair to say it is a band with the same name, new material (if ever released) but different members?  I went to the Cleveland show back in 2002, but more so just to see/experience Axl in a live setting, since I was only about 10 when UYI's came out.  I actually thought it was a better show then it was gonna be, especially since Axl was in good spirits and the fact that he ACTUALLY SHOWED UP, ON TIME! But he did go backstage every song to probably hit the oxygen tank. But if i was 40 and running around onstage like that I'd be proud of myself. The new members know the material, so should they tour and let people hear these awesome songs live, even if not original members?? if you wanted to, you could close your eyes and just imagine it's them.  I mean when they lost Izzy and Steven they continued, it may not have been as cool with Gilby, Matt, Dizzy, and all those chicks in the horn section, but nonetheless people accepted it.  So technically after that it was just Axl, Slash, and Duff.  But losing those two is kinda big....what ya think?

[HoldenCaulfield]

Of course this is a great legacy to carry on. I'd say otherwise if the band didn't really "play the fuck outta these old songs", but they play them better than the old band.

[badapple81]

Sometimes I feel like I'm beatin a Dead Horse.

I think your question can really be answered accurately around RIR4 time and when we get CD. Then when its a masterpiece and people are singing the praises of Axl and GNR.. you get your answer  

[SlashFan]

Of course this is a great legacy to carry on. I'd say otherwise if the band didn't really "play the fuck outta these old songs", but they play them better than the old band.

Playing the songs better is not the point.It was the old band that wrote them and played on the albums.I like the new band,but they need their own stuff to play.At this point I guess they are sort of a cover band because they did play the old songs.

[Funeral]

I think we should stop referring to them as a "band".  They no longer play live or release new material.  Everything they once were, is past tense at this point.

-F

[SlashFan]

I think we should stop referring to them as a "band".  They no longer play live or release new material.  Everything they once were, is past tense at this point.

-F

I know that you're right about that.

[kockstar99]

oh wow! this has never discussed  before

[//JK75]

but they play them better than the old band.

I don't think so.
They can play old songs but I got a lot of bootlegs from the old band and they play great tohse songs.. No one can play that songs best !! Slash is unique !!
That Loader review from Rio... hummm I don't agree !

[//JK75]

And !!!
I'm not telling the new band play bad !
They are a great band but, not the same...

[Dizzy]

A cover band.  As far as I'm concerned, the Sorum/Clarke era wasn't much different (though not as bad as the Axl Rose band).  Without Steven and Izzy, it just didn't work.  

[SLCPUNK]

Talented group of musicians. They will be sealed as a band if they ever release something!

[journey]

I'd say both.  They've got to play the old stuff, because that's what made guns what they are.  But, the new members/band, will introduce a new sound and fresh ideas that will capture the interest of fans. It's worth waiting for!

[Timothy]

A cover band till CD is released.

[blues_rock_axeman]

Great band, very talented, very versatile, very entertaining, very diverse, highly skilled, good players: but not Guns N' Roses.

Case closed.