Why isn't the new gnr considered a supergroup?

[Eazy E]

But there are songs in that vault, on that album, that the band think very highly of. And we havnt heard them yet. So until they are heard you cant say they have or havnt delivered.

Huh?  Isn't that the EXACT definition of them not delivering?



"There are Pizzas at Pizza Hut.  Delicious Pizzas.  Mouth-watering Pizzas.  Pizza's that are sitting in the pizza box, ready to be sent to you in the comfort of your home.  And we haven't tasted them yet.  So until they are tasted, you can't say whether or not Pizza Hut have delivered."

[Mr Cowbell ?]

Yeah I am sure he only honestly believes its a filler when its putting it with two of their biggest hits

Lets think about it logically. Does he feel strongly about Maddy? Im sure he does. But that doesnt mean he thinks its a hit. He played it because of the songs they have played it best fit the melody. Also why play a single if the album isnt coming out during that time. Why play a single if its not even out. Why show it to the world live? MAkes no sense....


Whether you think Axl and the band are capable of creating classics is your choice. But there are songs in that vault, on that album, that the band think very highly of. And we havnt heard them yet. So until they are heard you cant say they have or havnt delivered.

If you want to believe that they will play a "filler" song night after night at every live show because they want to keep their "big guns" back is crazy. I believe if the 2002 tour would of sold better and went better I believe CD would of been a spring of 2003 release, so I think in hindsite that at the VMA Axl had to be planning on CD coming out.

[younggunner]

Huh?? Isn't that the EXACT definition of them not delivering?

Whos saying they have delivered? They havnt. When the bell rings, I personally think they will but until then they havnt.
The jury is out on GNr musically. We wont know if they have or havnt delivered musically until they actually deliver the album.

If you want to believe that they will play a "filler" song night after night at every live show because they want to keep their "big guns" back is crazy. I believe if the 2002 tour would of sold better and went better I believe CD would of been a spring of 2003 release, so I think in hindsite that at the VMA Axl had to be planning on CD coming out.

No, actually its not crazy. It makes plenty of sense to me. Ill try to break it down for you.
Take for instance what Axl said at the vmas."we will do a north american tour then go back and do some more RECORDING." In other words, CD wasnt completed in august of 2002.
The whole idea of the 2002 tour was for the band to get out of the studio and gel as a live band. It was an oppurtunity for them to introduce the new lineup and also play the old stuff, for the most part,1 last time. They threw in a few new songs to give us some sort of an idea of what they are working on.
Why play your best songs{songs that will define and potentially legitimize the band} if:
A} you dont have an album out? or
B}dont have a single/video out

And also why reveal your best material live. That leaves it open to be bootlegged and people would only go on crappy boots and jusge the album on boots. Yea so work hard day and night on material, keep everything under lock and key,have everyone lips sealed about the band and music...yet throw that all away in a tour..before the album is even out or finished....Riiight

I agree, the 2002 tour was pointless. And thats basically why it probably ended. They realized that it could only get so good and that for them to be successful they need to have their own material. Hence the tour got aborted in December.

What GNr should have done was go on a quick major arena city tour. They would have sold those out. The press would have had 1 less thing to bash them on and they would have gotten more positive press. They could have accomplished many things with that kind of a tour.{Gel as a band,new lineup,old stuff,etc}. Instead they schedule to tour idaho,tacoma,etc withough an album to promote. Totally pointless.

To say that the songs they have played are their best? might turn out to be true but again, according to the band and by hearing what other people have said, this band has a bunch of songs that they are banking on. Whether you believe them or not is up to you. I know where I stand. But fact is that there are "better"songs that have yet to be heard. And thats music to my ears?

[Hammy]

The names Slash and Scott Weiland are HOUSEHOLD names to many many people in the world.? Duff and Matt are known well out of the league of Robin and co.? So, that's why.? They have made way more of an impact in the world of music and that's the simple fact.

I'll agree the New GN'R members aren't that well known but hell i did not know who Scott Weiland was before he joined Velvet Revolver.  I still think it's more to do with them keeping the same name, a different name and i think they would have been called a supergroup.

[Mysteron]

I've not read the entire thread but isn't the 'supergroup' label normally given to secondary/new bands that are made up of already famous people. Like if Axl left Guns n'roses and formed a new band with Brian May and other famous people, that would then be branded a supergroup

[Booker Floyd]

I've not read the entire thread but isn't the 'supergroup' label normally given to secondary/new bands that are made up of already famous people. Like if Axl left Guns n'roses and formed a new band with Brian May and other famous people, that would then be branded a supergroup

This should have been the first and last reply in this mess of a thread...

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

eh... i think there some pretty cool posts came out of this thread
and a discussion about supergroups in general can be pretty interesting /informative

as far as the topc thread...  the new gnr is not considered a supergroup because its "Guns N' Roses"... an already existing band made up of members which were not previously famous.  I think if the new Guns N' Roses Line-up was under a new name it could be deemed a supergroup...  But I don't think that is something that any one wants (neither the fans nor the bandmembers)

anyway.. i thought this was interesting... check it out:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergroup_%28bands%29

In the late 1960s, the term supergroup was coined to describe music groups comprising members of great proficiency who had already achieved fame or respect in other groups or as individual artists. The term took its name from the 1968 album Super Session with Al Kooper, Mike Bloomfield, and Stephen Stills. The coalition of Crosby, Stills and Nash (later Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young) is another example.

With the success of Cream, the term also came to include groups that sold huge numbers of albums and headlined massive concerts, regardless of the previous fame of the individual members. However, the term as correctly applied refers to the architecture, not the achievements, of the group. By any standards, it is not a rigidly defined category and has become, more than anything, a marketing term.

Supergroups tend to be short-lived (often lasting only for an album or two), perhaps because of the natural conflict of egos between established stars. Also, some supergroups were formed as side projects that were never intended to be permanent.

Examples of supergroups: (see article for entire list with hyperlinks) includes Neurotic Outsiders and Reloaded AND Velvet Revolver
and very interestingly lists Led Zepplin saying the following:  Led Zeppelin is a marginal case, because although Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones were famous and respected when the band formed as The New Yardbirds, the other half of the group were relative unknowns at the time (albeit very competent unknowns). Page's original intention for the group was to include other well known musicians for the vocalist and drummers spots.

hm...

ha! 
anyway.. pretty good list
surprised not to see the vedder/cornell pairing Temple of the Dog on there...
check it out

[realgunner]

  New GN'R-They haven't done any record so far,no albums have been sold,members has not names exept for Axl and Fans have been waiting for Axl since 1996 and he can't delivery it.
  VR-They did a Kickass album in less than a year and sold 256,000 copies the first week,they have Fans actually buying their tickets on their successful tour and their names are Slash,Duff McKagan,Matt Sorum and Scott Weiland.
 
 PS- I actually read  in here someone saying that he only knew about Scott when he came out singin' with VR.Well,let me tell you something if you didn't know who Scott was before or either you didn't listen to rock or you were to young
to remember,'cause STP were all over the radio and TV at that time.
                                                                                                                         cheers

[jarmo]

PS- I actually read? in here someone saying that he only knew about Scott when he came out singin' with VR.Well,let me tell you something if you didn't know who Scott was before or either you didn't listen to rock or you were to young
to remember,'cause STP were all over the radio and TV at that time.

Wrong, STP were huge in USA, not in the rest of the world.

They never were in the Nirvana, Pearl Jam league in popularity in the rest of the world.


Regarding GN'R being labeled a supergroup, I think it's good thing that they're not labeled as one...... I mean, it's a label. Would you be interested in hearing the question "so how does it feel to be labeled a super group?" in every interview?



/jarmo

[ppbebe]

isn't the 'supergroup' label normally given to secondary/new bands that are made up of already famous people.

This should have been the first and last reply in this mess of a thread...

Actually cowbell mentioned that at page 1 and many other posters did but they couldn?t stop the mobocracy rise.
So, I think otherwise.
Just look at 2 post above.? ?? ? ?Cheers

[Music For Life]

I was thinking today about why isn't the new gnr considered a supergroup?
Think about it, you have VR who is considered one, they got members of gnr and stp.
Audio slave is considered one bc they have members from soundgarden and rage.
Temple of the dog was considered one and so was mad season, but the new gnr is not.
They have Axl and Dizzy from old gnr, tommy from the replacements, robin from nin, fortus from psychiallic furs, bh from a lot of stuff and brian from primus.
So why arent gnr considered a supergroup is it just because they kept the guns n roses name?
When Cd comes out, i still dont see them being called one.

the psychiallic furs and the replacements are such big name bands too, lol.  trent reznor is nin also, not many people go to see robin fink, lol.  axls band is a cover band. 

this thread is a joke

[dave-gnfnr2k]

^^
For the thread being a joke it sure did get a lot of replies, and it was supposted to get a good convo going and not be the same tired old thread that we have done 100 times over. And it accomplished that, so I guess the joke is on you.

As for my wording of the thread.
I should have said, should the new gnr be considered a supergroup.
And again, the bands these people came from were popular, even if some of them were underground, but my idea of a super group is when talented musics from different bands form a different band.

And this new version of gnr is very talented that was my point.

[ppbebe]

should the new gnr be considered a supergroup.

NO, cos I don?t like that label.
But maybe I can stand "marginal super group" like Zep.
(Gosh, I love this word "marginal"!!! )
As, unlike today?s super band, they became far greater than their former bands musically and commercially.

(q.v. Eva GnRAxlRosette's post on: Today at 11:46:18am)

And this new version of gnr is very talented that was my point.