If one of the ex-members wanted to come back to the GN'R?

[mike_giuliana]

I just would take the old members back in a heart beat over keeping hte new guys..

You'd take a reunion inspired by money and greed over a band that don't want to take the easy way to make some money?




/jarmo

It's not what I would look for, I know slash had said in btm it had to be mutual respect, and that they had been offered crazy amounts of money to regroup and tour.. I don't want just somre tour for old time's sake, but motley crue originally regrouped for the wrong reasons and now they are talking about future albums and adding more dates... Good things can happen from wrong beginnings.. I am a guns n roses fan, but I rather gnr fade out like it should have years ago then have a money fueled tour while everyone is cold and distant or have a new gnr.. It;s tough because I do want to see axl perform again and hear him sing on an album..

I Will always feel gnr is over evenm if the name continues.. That's just me but I will support his effort even though I don't agree with his policy using the name,... Band breaks up and that's the way it goes no matter who's fault it was.. People call van halen with sammy van haggar.. It just depends on how you grew up adn where you stand in this.. My youth was the gnr we all loved adn the members were a big part of it..

I know a lot of people will say but gnr's lineup changed a few times, members left.. I agree, but back then gnr was the size of the earth, they had so many obligations, stadiums booked albums to get out.. Lots of obligations that they might have had to fufill so they kept it going.. To start it over know, or again years later just didn't make sence gnr broke up the entire band changed..

[mike_giuliana]

I find it amazing and ridiculous that so many "fans" seem to wish that GNR had been preserved in amber back in 1987. I fail to see what would be achieved by a reunion or old members returning to the new line-up, other than placating the nostaligia-crazed moaners. In fact, I think a GNR reunion would be an embarassment like all other reunions; a group of middle-aged men getting back together to play songs that they wrote half a lifetime ago. For people who still pine for the original band members there's already a huge array of live bootlegs/videos, as well as the original albums and official dvds, and the memories of live shows they attended back in the day; is that not enough? The truth is that if Slash, Izzy, Duff and Steven got back together with Axl to tour, the band would be a shadow of its former self anyway, it's been well over a decade since those guys played together, they're different people now than they were then, and they're steadily advancing in years. Does anyone imagine that the original GNR in 2005 would play with the intensity and energy that they had in the late 80's? That a group of middle-aged millionairres who've been in and out of rehab numerous times are going to put on a show as wild as a bunch of drug-crazed kids?

Meanwhile, there's a whole new GNR with a new album on the way to look forward to, if you're interested. I have a feeling though that those who want GNR circa-1987 are going to be at least disappointed, if not musically disenfranchised, by CD.

HK-47. I totally agree. I'm glad they didn't take that path. Instead they choose their respective challenging courses.
Until they are too old to challenge, reunion is sissy.
The musical chemistry wouldn't be there.
Seemingly in GNR it was once burned out in the early '90th.

The idea is it would be guns n roses playing, not just axl playing.. By your theory every group as they get old they should change bands to keep it fresh.. Maybe every ten years we can recycle bands..
It shocks me some of you are gnr fans, it really does..

Fine you don't want a money driven no chemistry tour then that's cool, I made my feelings above, but I also rather have no gnr then a fake gnr that is carrying it's weight on a name that was established by a group of others.. Reunuions always sell bettr because the fans want the real thing, accept no substitute..

[Luigi]

If I was to want any ex-members to come back, I'd have to say Slash, Izzy, Duff and I guess Matt cause in my book there isn't a GNR until the original line-up is reformed. Its like mixing water and oil, they just don't mix. I'll listen to the new line up but don't fucken try to sell it as GNR, you can call it want you want but its not GUNS N ROSES at all! Its the Stinson band, the Buckethead band, etc.. not GNR nutil the ex-members are back! Sorry you've been fucked over.

[Luigi]

Oh ya! to all you GNR moms, Happy Mothers Day

[D]

I dont really want Matt back, he kind of pissed me off with his ludicrous "piano" comment on BTM.

While watching VR Friday night, I turned to my GF and told her "Im glad Axl has a new band"

now i get VR with Scott who is awesome and I get Axl.

I get VR fo the old school rock type shit and I get Axl hopefully for the new, epic amazing shit.

both ways I win.

Plus the excitement i feel over Chinese Democracy wouldnt exist with the new band and plus Axl would cease to be one of my heroes if there were a reunion.

Ive always looked up to Axl because he never really sold out in my opinion, he has always did shit his way and has always stuck to his guns.

For all that has happened and all that has been said, if he welcomed the old members back with open arms and did a reunion thing, It would just change the respect I have for Axl.

[Pandora]

But then again, don't remember who said it (Duff?) but it went something like; Rose is a person that has very strict view how the things should be and who's a friend and who's not to the point when he just decides to think otherwise.

Meaning he tends to change his mind regularly? Hmm, I don't know, Axl looks like the type that holds lifelong grudges to me, and several of his collaborators along the years have attested to that. If he feels you've fucked him over, then you're out for good.

By the way, I found the actual quote I mentioned earlier :
"For the fans to attempt to condemn me to relationships even only professional with any of these men is a prison sentence and something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. I'd say my parole is nearly over. I'm practically a free man and if you don't like it you'll have plenty of time to get used to the idea."

http://hem.passagen.se/snoqalf/art-200208-gnronline.html

[AdZ]

Meaning he tends to change his mind regularly? Hmm, I don't know, Axl looks like the type that holds lifelong grudges to me, and several of his collaborators along the years have attested to that. If he feels you've fucked him over, then you're out for good.

Much like Frank Sinatra.  Wasn't his favourite book a Sinatra biography?

[Pandora]

Much like Frank Sinatra.  Wasn't his favourite book a Sinatra biography?

You're right. That was a long time ago though.

[noizzynofuture]

I just would take the old members back in a heart beat over keeping hte new guys..

You'd take a reunion inspired by money and greed over a band that don't want to take the easy way to make some money?




/jarmo

Jarmo, you don't think the current lineup is all about money ??

I think you need to take a closer look as your vision seems to be a bit foggy.  New Gnr have done nothing but sit back and collect a check for 2 1/2 years.

To date New GNR have produced:

- a techno B side for a soundtrack, which didn't include some of the current members
- one horrific appearance on MTV
- a dozen live performances
- zero singles
- zero videos
- zero albums

The only thing keeping these guys tied to "new gnr" is the money.  Tell them tommorow there's no more money and they'll flee faster than Michael Jackson at the playboy mansion.


The arguments are silly, old vs new, until new puts something out to be evaluated, theres no argument.   But don't think for a minute the new is in this for the love of anything but $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.   

[michaelvincent]

I think everyone is happy doing what they are doing, from ex-members on down to the new guys.....and Axl.

Though, in bizarro world, if we saw the old crew back in action I'd like to see it mixed (some old, some new....)

Axl - of course
Slash - of course
Izzy - of course
Toss in Fortus as a third guitarist
Dizzy
Duff - of course

And I would leave Steven out, he's spent goods. I wouldn't want Matt in there either, I thought he was horrible in GnR (great drummer, wrong band). Brain in a bit of a wild card too until we really hear what he can do on the album. I'd cast my vote for drafting in Steve Gorman of the Black Crowes. Great feel, good swing, real solid.

Of course I'm just daydreaming here....but a boy can dream....

[AxlStaleyWeiland]

John Daniels
the topic may not but the replies are likely to kill a poor horse.

Basically I think wishing replacing a present member is quite insulting.
It's not like discussing their skill or performance or just showing your preference for the old members.

I'm talking about chances

Then slim to nun.

Besides, I've already stated that I think reunions are lame, so the current situation doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I'd rather have no GN'R than a reunited GN'R (let the flaming begin !)

My sentiments exactly. Pandora
I love the new band, the new songs and the new chemistry. It's unpredictable yet seems limitless.

how is discussing replacing a present member insulting? The guys we're talking about are ORIGINAL members, the guys who recorded one of the best debuts of all time, if anything is insulting its calling any of the new guys GNR

[HK-47]

The idea is it would be guns n roses playing, not just axl playing.. By your theory every group as they get old they should change bands to keep it fresh.. Maybe every ten years we can recycle bands..
It shocks me some of you are gnr fans, it really does..

Fine you don't want a money driven no chemistry tour then that's cool, I made my feelings above, but I also rather have no gnr then a fake gnr that is carrying it's weight on a name that was established by a group of others.. Reunuions always sell bettr because the fans want the real thing, accept no substitute..

Any band led by Axl is GNR. He has the right to use the name, legally and morally, because the other members of the band gave it to him. Regardless of the reasoning behind it, every one of them signed away their interest in that name. Frankly, the name is the least relevant aspect of any discussion about the new band - let's put it this way; If Slash & co ended up playing with Axl again, would you give a damn if they toured under the Velvet Revolver name, or Snakepit, or any other title? No, you'd support them regardless. It works both ways; Axl has a new band an album in production and it doesn't matter a bit to me or anyone else what they're called, I'm interested.

Reunions sell better? They sell better than what? And what does that have to do with anything? I have infinately more respect for any musician who does what they want to do and risks no-one turning up to hear them than those so-called "artists" who are crafted specifically to appeal to the public. Saying that the old GNR should get back together because "people want to see it, it sells tickets!" is basically saying "be a man, sell out!"




To those people who suggest that the new band members are "only in it for the money"; Don't you think that they could make more money actually touring for any band which asked them, rather than sitting at home and picking up a retainer? Any one of those guys could be raking in cash by hiring themselves out to any band which is actually touring right now. They'd certainly be able to make more money than any one of them can earn from their solo/side projects. Money and prestige are undoubtedly what brought them to the table originally but if it were only about those two things do you really think they'd happily remain tied to a contract with Axl while there's still no sign of the album or shows? Every one of them has better options than "doing nothing" for a minor fee. 

[AxlStaleyWeiland]

The idea is it would be guns n roses playing, not just axl playing.. By your theory every group as they get old they should change bands to keep it fresh.. Maybe every ten years we can recycle bands..
It shocks me some of you are gnr fans, it really does..

Fine you don't want a money driven no chemistry tour then that's cool, I made my feelings above, but I also rather have no gnr then a fake gnr that is carrying it's weight on a name that was established by a group of others.. Reunuions always sell bettr because the fans want the real thing, accept no substitute..

Any band led by Axl is GNR. He has the right to use the name, legally and morally, because the other members of the band gave it to him. Regardless of the reasoning behind it, every one of them signed away their interest in that name. Frankly, the name is the least relevant aspect of any discussion about the new band - let's put it this way; If Slash & co ended up playing with Axl again, would you give a damn if they toured under the Velvet Revolver name, or Snakepit, or any other title? No, you'd support them regardless. It works both ways; Axl has a new band an album in production and it doesn't matter a bit to me or anyone else what they're called, I'm interested.

Reunions sell better? They sell better than what? And what does that have to do with anything? I have infinately more respect for any musician who does what they want to do and risks no-one turning up to hear them than those so-called "artists" who are crafted specifically to appeal to the public. Saying that the old GNR should get back together because "people want to see it, it sells tickets!" is basically saying "be a man, sell out!"




To those people who suggest that the new band members are "only in it for the money"; Don't you think that they could make more money actually touring for any band which asked them, rather than sitting at home and picking up a retainer? Any one of those guys could be raking in cash by hiring themselves out to any band which is actually touring right now. They'd certainly be able to make more money than any one of them can earn from their solo/side projects. Money and prestige are undoubtedly what brought them to the table originally but if it were only about those two things do you really think they'd happily remain tied to a contract with Axl while there's still no sign of the album or shows? Every one of them has better options than "doing nothing" for a minor fee.?

Not to me or millions of others who laugh at the prospect of this band being Guns N' Roses

[HK-47]

Not to me or millions of others who laugh at the prospect of this band being Guns N' Roses

Sadly, you don't get a say in the matter. Regardless what you and "the millions of others" (which I take to be slang for "a few dozen people on the internet") might laugh at, Axl owns the name, any band he wants to call Guns N Roses is Guns N Roses. End of story.? ?

[Dust N Rose]

The arguments are silly, old vs new, until new puts something out to be evaluated, theres no argument.? ?But don't think for a minute the new is in this for the love of anything but $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.? ?

If they were, they would release a cd every two years, dvds out from old shows, singles, rereleased singles, best of, bootlegs e.t.c...... Classic stuff like Maiden do every year (I like Maiden btw).
Unfortunately for u, the new is more for the fame (or glory) than money. Axl's already a millionaire besides.

[Dust N Rose]

Also to be honest the only one who could return to GN'R easier than everybody else is Gilby. He has a good relationship with Axl after 2000.

[tomass74]

I love VR but I would give them up in a second to see Gn'R back together again. All five original members. They should atleast give Steven a shot and if it doesn't work out then just use Brain. I never liked Matt Sorum. I never liked Dizzy either for that matter , but I guess he would be there tagging along....

[Pandora]

To date New GNR have produced:

- a techno B side for a soundtrack, which didn't include some of the current members
 

IT'S NOT TECHNO FOR FUCKS SAKE !!!!

How long will we have to put up with ignorant comments like this one?

[ppbebe]

Axl looks like the type that holds lifelong grudges to me, and several of his collaborators along the years have attested to that. If he feels you've fucked him over, then you're out for good.

I have a little objection to "the type that holds lifelong grudges" bits.

From the way Tommy has described the matter, Axl seems to just forget about the person completely.
He considers the person of no existence, no more bothers and that's that.

And it's only if (he feels) the person really severs the chain with him, in bad faith.
So I read.

[mike_giuliana]

The idea is it would be guns n roses playing, not just axl playing.. By your theory every group as they get old they should change bands to keep it fresh.. Maybe every ten years we can recycle bands..
It shocks me some of you are gnr fans, it really does..

Fine you don't want a money driven no chemistry tour then that's cool, I made my feelings above, but I also rather have no gnr then a fake gnr that is carrying it's weight on a name that was established by a group of others.. Reunuions always sell bettr because the fans want the real thing, accept no substitute..

Any band led by Axl is GNR. He has the right to use the name, legally and morally, because the other members of the band gave it to him. Regardless of the reasoning behind it, every one of them signed away their interest in that name. Frankly, the name is the least relevant aspect of any discussion about the new band - let's put it this way; If Slash & co ended up playing with Axl again, would you give a damn if they toured under the Velvet Revolver name, or Snakepit, or any other title? No, you'd support them regardless. It works both ways; Axl has a new band an album in production and it doesn't matter a bit to me or anyone else what they're called, I'm interested.

Reunions sell better? They sell better than what? And what does that have to do with anything? I have infinately more respect for any musician who does what they want to do and risks no-one turning up to hear them than those so-called "artists" who are crafted specifically to appeal to the public. Saying that the old GNR should get back together because "people want to see it, it sells tickets!" is basically saying "be a man, sell out!"




To those people who suggest that the new band members are "only in it for the money"; Don't you think that they could make more money actually touring for any band which asked them, rather than sitting at home and picking up a retainer? Any one of those guys could be raking in cash by hiring themselves out to any band which is actually touring right now. They'd certainly be able to make more money than any one of them can earn from their solo/side projects. Money and prestige are undoubtedly what brought them to the table originally but if it were only about those two things do you really think they'd happily remain tied to a contract with Axl while there's still no sign of the album or shows? Every one of them has better options than "doing nothing" for a minor fee.?

Not to me or millions of others who laugh at the prospect of this band being Guns N' Roses

same here not everyone understands what a group is.. If the roles were reversed an a van halen type sammy haggar thing happened I wouldn't consider it gnr without axl either.. Just because someone owns the name doesn't mean it still is the same thing..