Possible "Surprise"?

[pasnow]

You're getting WAYYY to technical if you think Slash wasn't the original guitarist. Plus I think he was, prior to him they were Hollywood Rose. I may be wrong on that, but again that's all just technicalities. In the end, Slash is the original guitarist, and the lineup on AFD IS the Original GNR. I don't need some kid who was 4 then to tell me otherwise!!


I agree with the that this reunion shit has to go, but so does this Slash stuff as well. The odds are highly against him being back in, but we'll find out May 12th.

Yes, it is getting techincal saying slash wasn't original, but it is true. Tracii guns missed a show and slash replaced him. Not trying to discredit slash or his contributions, just tryin to make a point to people who think this isn't really gnr, as some on the board do. Part of the actual name comes from tracii guns, so how come nobody says it's not gnr without him??? And for the record, just to make you feel that much older, i was 2 when this happened, not 4.

Tracii Guns sucked ass & so did LA Guns. Tracii, unlike Dave Mustaine, didn't help write any songs of AFD. Plus Dave Mustaine (who I do not like) was in Metallica for nearly 2 years, HUGE DIFFERENCE. Just because he was in it for a few weeks doesn't make him a "GnR Original".

[misterID]

The surprise will more than likely be the introduction of a new guitarist... I highly doubt it will be Slash. They seem like poison to each other, so why would they play together? The most anyone can hope is that one day they'll meet and make up. Slash may jam with the band. That's about as close to a "reunion" as we'll ever see.

And Robin rules! Just thought I'd add that

[mikegiuliana]

You're getting WAYYY to technical if you think Slash wasn't the original guitarist. Plus I think he was, prior to him they were Hollywood Rose. I may be wrong on that, but again that's all just technicalities. In the end, Slash is the original guitarist, and the lineup on AFD IS the Original GNR. I don't need some kid who was 4 then to tell me otherwise!!


I agree with the that this reunion shit has to go, but so does this Slash stuff as well. The odds are highly against him being back in, but we'll find out May 12th.

Yes, it is getting techincal saying slash wasn't original, but it is true. Tracii guns missed a show and slash replaced him. Not trying to discredit slash or his contributions, just tryin to make a point to people who think this isn't really gnr, as some on the board do. Part of the actual name comes from tracii guns, so how come nobody says it's not gnr without him??? And for the record, just to make you feel that much older, i was 2 when this happened, not 4.

you have to be joking about traci guns, I mean come on gnr did nothing with him ,they were not known they had no record deals .. I mean if I start a band as a kid and two months later the band that I make it and do all the song with is formed that is the real band..

[GunnerOne 84]

I was not trying to make the claim that guns was a vital part of gnr, only to show that you need to look at the bigger picture. Slash was undeniably the best guitarist they've had. But to claim it's not gnr because he ins't there simply isn't factual. Izzy had a huge hand in the writing of many songs, yet noone claims the illusions tours after he left wasn't really gnr. They also replaced their drummer, but again this doesn't seem to matter. I love Slash's work, his attitude, and his stage presence. If i could pick anyone to be lead guitarist, it would be Slash. However, even if it isn't going to happen, it's still guns. People want that vibe that the appetite era gave them, and i understand why. But that feel was already starting to decay when illusions hit. They weren't poor anymore, they were bonafide rockstars, and attitudes change. Axl started canceling shows, playing havoc in the studio, even then it really wasn't a band in the sense that they were for appetite. It wasn't a tight knit group anymore. Guns n roses is what it is today, and that's how it is.

[misterID]

I was not trying to make the claim that guns was a vital part of gnr, only to show that you need to look at the bigger picture. Slash was undeniably the best guitarist they've had. But to claim it's not gnr because he ins't there simply isn't factual. Izzy had a huge hand in the writing of many songs, yet noone claims the illusions tours after he left wasn't really gnr. They also replaced their drummer, but again this doesn't seem to matter. I love Slash's work, his attitude, and his stage presence. If i could pick anyone to be lead guitarist, it would be Slash. However, even if it isn't going to happen, it's still guns. People want that vibe that the appetite era gave them, and i understand why. But that feel was already starting to decay when illusions hit. They weren't poor anymore, they were bonafide rockstars, and attitudes change. Axl started canceling shows, playing havoc in the studio, even then it really wasn't a band in the sense that they were for appetite. It wasn't a tight knit group anymore. Guns n roses is what it is today, and that's how it is.

Dude, I get what you're trying to say. Trust me. You just have to understand that there are some people here who will never accept this as GNR. They are stuck in 1988 and are happy about it. They don't realize that even if all the original members reunited it would still be a very different band than what it was in the AFD years.

Assanine Reunion rumors will always be around. This is GNR and some people can't deal with it. There's no sense in debating it. You'll have better results with a brick wall. After five years I should know?

[Takemedown]

it's guns n roses because Axl has the naming rights. but anyone with half a brain knows it's not reallly guns n roses.

i mean, c'mon already! doesn't mean Axl and his new band won't rock 'cause i'm sure they will. but tain't gnr.

if paul mccartney decided to start touring under the beatles name, would that be the beatles?
 

[believeume]

Really, the only thing 95% of the people care about is if Slash is going to be playing with Axl and would consider that a reunion... I'm sure it would be nice if Izzy, Duff and Adler were there, but for the most part, if Slash showed up, I doubt they would really care one way or the other about the other guys not being there.

[mikegiuliana]

it's guns n roses because Axl has the naming rights. but anyone with half a brain knows it's not reallly guns n roses.

i mean, c'mon already! doesn't mean Axl and his new band won't rock 'cause i'm sure they will. but tain't gnr.

if paul mccartney decided to start touring under the beatles name, would that be the beatles?
 

exactly man.. With these people axl could get anyone adn it would be gnr, he has the rights to the name, that's not what makes gnr..

[GunnerOne 84]

it's guns n roses because Axl has the naming rights. but anyone with half a brain knows it's not reallly guns n roses.

i mean, c'mon already! doesn't mean Axl and his new band won't rock 'cause i'm sure they will. but tain't gnr.

if paul mccartney decided to start touring under the beatles name, would that be the beatles?
 

I understand your point, i dont think this is the same situation though. The beatles actually broke up, and halted all operations. Guns n roses, didn't (and still haven't) released anything for a long time, but the band didn't split, it became a revlolving door, with different members leaving at different times, and new members coming in to replace them. I agree with the post that if slash and only slash showed up, most people would consider that a reunion. I would also like to point out the chilli peppers have had a few guitarist changes as well. I think it is the nature of the industry, very few bands have original lineups at this point, if they make it this far.

Thanks for getting my point misterID, im glad someone can look at it from two sides.

[pasnow]

I was not trying to make the claim that guns was a vital part of gnr, only to show that you need to look at the bigger picture. Slash was undeniably the best guitarist they've had. But to claim it's not gnr because he ins't there simply isn't factual. Izzy had a huge hand in the writing of many songs, yet noone claims the illusions tours after he left wasn't really gnr. They also replaced their drummer, but again this doesn't seem to matter. I love Slash's work, his attitude, and his stage presence. If i could pick anyone to be lead guitarist, it would be Slash. However, even if it isn't going to happen, it's still guns. People want that vibe that the appetite era gave them, and i understand why. But that feel was already starting to decay when illusions hit. They weren't poor anymore, they were bonafide rockstars, and attitudes change. Axl started canceling shows, playing havoc in the studio, even then it really wasn't a band in the sense that they were for appetite. It wasn't a tight knit group anymore. Guns n roses is what it is today, and that's how it is.

Well now you're getting more on track. I agree with you here. Some people may be hoping to see the originals as a group of 28 year olds tearing it up.. Axl's 44 now, not the same live, not the same new lyrics. He probably won't be writing about drugs sex & alchohol anymore. I'm cool with the new lineup, hope it's mostly the same from 02 (Robyn, Tommy, etc) I'd still like to see BH in. I'm guessing he may not be back, but who knows.. I give it a 33% chance he's still in it. The only bad thing could be if it's an entirely new cast. Then Axl might as well hang it up.. THAT would be disaster.

[misterID]

it's guns n roses because Axl has the naming rights. but anyone with half a brain knows it's not reallly guns n roses.

i mean, c'mon already! doesn't mean Axl and his new band won't rock 'cause i'm sure they will. but tain't gnr.

if paul mccartney decided to start touring under the beatles name, would that be the beatles?
 

exactly man.. With these people axl could get anyone adn it would be gnr, he has the rights to the name, that's not what makes gnr..

GNR and The Beatles.... You can't even compare the two. Please. The Beatles NEVER replaced a single member (it started with Sorum). They were around for a lot longer. Released more albums, and more influential albums than GNR. And the big thing is they broke up. GNR never did.

Stop trying to compare them with every classic band you can think of. We still call the Cure The Cure and King Crimson King Crimson even though only the lead singers remain.

[GunnerOne 84]

I think we see eye to eye on that pasnow. If he shows up having just hired a bunch of random names, it all becomes a sham at this point. At least many of the people who are supposedly in gnr have been there for a good number of years now. I really like what stinson brings to the band, he seems to be a stabalizing force. Hopefully at worst what we get is the same lineup as 2002, though i can't stand buckethead, even though he is a great player.

[mikegiuliana]

it's guns n roses because Axl has the naming rights. but anyone with half a brain knows it's not reallly guns n roses.

i mean, c'mon already! doesn't mean Axl and his new band won't rock 'cause i'm sure they will. but tain't gnr.

if paul mccartney decided to start touring under the beatles name, would that be the beatles?
 

I understand your point, i dont think this is the same situation though. The beatles actually broke up, and halted all operations. Guns n roses, didn't (and still haven't) released anything for a long time, but the band didn't split, it became a revlolving door, with different members leaving at different times, and new members coming in to replace them. I agree with the post that if slash and only slash showed up, most people would consider that a reunion. I would also like to point out the chilli peppers have had a few guitarist changes as well. I think it is the nature of the industry, very few bands have original lineups at this point, if they make it this far.

Thanks for getting my point misterID, im glad someone can look at it from two sides.

you can say revolving door but the band had been inactive forever... The band was over when izzy left in my eyes,.,.. I still love axl, but I think this could have been called something else..  it's like now if there's a new third player I guess he's gnr too..  To me gnr is the ritz 88, that is gnr, the guys who worked on afd, the guys who will be inducted...

[speed_stone]

whatever the surprize im down '

 
same here.

[pasnow]

Stop trying to compare them with every classic band you can think of. We still call the Cure The Cure and King Crimson King Crimson even though only the lead singers remain.

Would you still call The The The The ? ? j/k

[madagas]

It will be Gnr to me if they release an album or two. Without a record, they are just backing musicians for Axl. However, with a record and song writing credits, they become Gnr...albeit Gnr part two....but still Gnr. They are a pretty rock and roll bunch of guys and quite frankly are more fuck you than the original members at this point. Duff is clean and sober....Slash is pretty cleaned up. Tommy Stinson and Dizzy are definitely not clean and sober. Tommy is rock and roll to the bone. To be honest, they are much more in to the rock and roll lifestyle than VR-outside of Matt who seems to act like a 20 year old kid at this point. Axl is still boozing it up pretty good as well. If they would just release a good album, they will be more than worthy of the "name"....for whatever that's worth. As far as suprises go, I think there will be a third guitarist but have no earthly idea who it could be.

[marino95]

I wouldn't compare this situation to the Cure.  Robert Smith has always been the Cure - and many of the "revolving" members have been in and out of the band over the years.

I agree that Axl & Slash are Guns N Roses.  Izzy played a bigger part than most people realize in the songwriting - but really Axl & Slash are GNR. 

That said, I still think of the current incarnation of Pink Floyd as Pink Floyd - even though Roger Waters left the band 25 years ago.  However, I don't consider this current version of Queen as Queen without Freddie.  OK, now I'm confused.

Either way - who cares?  AXL ROSE IS BACK!  I don't care if he calls himself the Backstreet Boys - I'll be there for sure.  And it's not like this band isn't good - Brian is probably the best drummer Axl has ever had..... and Robin ain't bad either.

[misterID]

It will be Gnr to me if they release an album or two. Without a record, they are just backing musicians for Axl. However, with a record and song writing credits, they become Gnr...albeit Gnr part two....but still Gnr. They are a pretty rock and roll bunch of guys and quite frankly are more fuck you than the original members at this point. Duff is clean and sober....Slash is pretty cleaned up. Tommy Stinson and Dizzy are definitely not clean and sober. Tommy is rock and roll to the bone. To be honest, they are much more in to the rock and roll lifestyle than VR-outside of Matt who seems to act like a 20 year old kid at this point. Axl is still boozing it up pretty good as well. If they would just release a good album, they will be more than worthy of the "name"....for whatever that's worth.

I would agree with you, but for me, I think its pretty disrespectful to call a group of guys backing musicians who have been working in this band for the last eight years. I think they deserve to be called GNR.

[madagas]

Agree...but how much work have they really done? Nothing to show for it...arrrgghhhhhh....I am not the one who won't put out their music...that is disrespectful. 

[GnR-NOW]

if 2002 worked out and had CD been released 3-4 years ago, and had it had the commercial success we all anticipate it will have ... no one would argue about gnr not being gnr.  This is an oppurtunity to make their claim to gnr, they need to step out play the shit out of these four shows, go into the europe tour with a lot of steam, play the shit out of those shows, drop CD, the tour in the US in the fall.  If all of that goes to plan, theres no debate who the real GNR is and for the haters that never want to acknowledge that, they ll atleast be like those fucking guys can play.