mtv la says chinese democracy in november

[slashisvr]

well i think we should wait to see how the 'tour' goes first!!!if that ends up a disaster, then i think we can kiss goodbye to CD for another 2years

[TOPGUNner]

If the CD doesn't come out this year, I'd say it's safe to give up. The tour in 2002 was a failure, it's been 4 years since that...if the new band and Axl can't gel now, it's just never going to work. I'm very hopeful for it all, I'm really thinking positive and believing it's gonna work out, but if it doesn't...well....

[GnR-NOW]

I would like to agree, it has been 4 years, theres a tour coming up in 3 weeks, it would only seem logical to drop CD relatively soon.  However, if they don't does that mean theyre done? I dont know, I think no one will ever take the seriously again but how hard is it to make a comeback in music.  Mariah Carey had a nervous breakdown on TRL and now it big again.  I ve been saying releasing CD cures all.

[Smoking Guns]

You don't need a new album for a reunion tour.......

j/k, they could just do the typical greatest hits with two new studio cuts of the breifly reunited band. ?

Damn, I should have posted this in dead horse.

[TOPGUNner]

I would like to agree, it has been 4 years, theres a tour coming up in 3 weeks, it would only seem logical to drop CD relatively soon.? However, if they don't does that mean theyre done? I dont know, I think no one will ever take the seriously again but how hard is it to make a comeback in music.? Mariah Carey had a nervous breakdown on TRL and now it big again.? I ve been saying releasing CD cures all.

You know what kind of people don't take GNR seriously? The ones who haven't heard the new music. I hate people, and I don't mean you so please don't take it that way, who don't take the new GNR seriously and haven't heard the new music. The new GNR could get every ounce of credibility the old GNR had if they would let the public hear the new music.

As far as Mariah Scary goes? That's fucking mainstream pop bullshit. Doesn't matter what she does, the public loves her. She could make a CD recording of her taking a crap and it would still go double platinum. And that kids, is what we call, pathetic.

[CAFC Nick]

well i think we should wait to see how the 'tour' goes first!!!if that ends up a disaster, then i think we can kiss goodbye to CD for another 2years

Well, they made that mistake with the last tour. This time, they need to arrange the tour to coincide with a release date for CD.

[Chief]

I think the new band has great chemistry and is gelling pretty well with Axl.  The issue is mainly of the album's release as it has been for the last few years.

If the CD doesn't come out this year, I'd say it's safe to give up. The tour in 2002 was a failure, it's been 4 years since that...if the new band and Axl can't gel now, it's just never going to work. I'm very hopeful for it all, I'm really thinking positive and believing it's gonna work out, but if it doesn't...well....

[Bono]

The new GNR could get every ounce of credibility the old GNR had if they would let the public hear the new music.

NEVER! This new band will never have the credibility the old band had and it all has to do with Axl useing the name Guns N' Roses. I agree that if people can put aside their issues with the name and give the music a fair chance they'd see the music for what it is and give their due props, but the general public will ALWAYS scoff at the fact that this band is parading as Guns N' Roses. In fact I'm one of those people who think useing the name is ridiculous.  I'll never change my stance on that issue. It'd be like Bono going solo and calling his band U2. I just choose not to dwell on it anymore. This is gonna be Axl's own fault. he's drawing the enevitable comparison to old Guns N' Roses by useing the name. In a  sense he's put himself and this band behind the 8 ball right off the bat. the old band was a unti who needed each other to survive. their credibility lied in the hoinesty of the music, the rawness of it all. the new band are higherd guns and there will no doubt be a sense that this band isn't as genuine as the original. Like it or not that's just the plain and simple fact of it all.

[TOPGUNner]

The new GNR could get every ounce of credibility the old GNR had if they would let the public hear the new music.

NEVER! This new band will never have the credibility the old band had and it all has to do with Axl useing the name Guns N' Roses. I agree that if people can put aside their issues with the name and give the music a fair chance they'd see the music for what it is and give their due props, but the general public will ALWAYS scoff at the fact that this band is parading as Guns N' Roses. In fact I'm one of those people who think useing the name is ridiculous.? I'll never change my stance on that issue. It'd be like Bono going solo and calling his band U2. I just choose not to dwell on it anymore. This is gonna be Axl's own fault. he's drawing the enevitable comparison to old Guns N' Roses by useing the name. In a? sense he's put himself and this band behind the 8 ball right off the bat. the old band was a unti who needed each other to survive. their credibility lied in the hoinesty of the music, the rawness of it all. the new band are higherd guns and there will no doubt be a sense that this band isn't as genuine as the original. Like it or not that's just the plain and simple fact of it all.

What Axl needs to do is market the new GNR as a new breed of Guns and Roses. Axl has an advantage here, unlike other "new" bands like The Doors of the 21st Century or the new Lynard Skynard; AXL'S MAKING NEW MUSIC. The new Doors and the new Lynard all jsut play the old songs. Here, Axl has new band mates and is making music with them. I think it's fine that he calls the band Guns and Roses, just so long as he distinguishes between the two different bands. In my opinion, there are indeed 2 Guns and Roses, and I'm cool with that.

and something tells me that if Bono went Solo and called it U2, you'd still stick by him

[1badapple]

i think it'll be september. it'll be marketed as the first new GnR release of original music in 15 years.

[uncleslashbob]

don't you know its never coming out!!!!

[Bono]

What Axl needs to do is market the new GNR as a new breed of Guns and Roses. Axl has an advantage here, unlike other "new" bands like The Doors of the 21st Century or the new Lynard Skynard; AXL'S MAKING NEW MUSIC. The new Doors and the new Lynard all jsut play the old songs. Here, Axl has new band mates and is making music with them. I think it's fine that he calls the band Guns and Roses, just so long as he distinguishes between the two different bands. In my opinion, there are indeed 2 Guns and Roses, and I'm cool with that.

and something tells me that if Bono went Solo and called it U2, you'd still stick by him

Ummm... you mean the same way I still support Axl. Sure I'd want to hear the music and see him live but I would never in a million years support Bono calling his new band U2. In fact U2 is more of a true band than any band has ever been.? They were a "band" before they were a band. It's been the? same 4 guys since 1976 and they were friends even before that. U2 more so than any other band ever is greater than the sum of their parts. Trust me when I say this; Bono has too much respect for his bandmates/freinds to ever pull that sort of stunt and despite what you think a massively huge overwhelming number of U2 fans, myself included would think it an outrage if the band continued to call themselves U2 if even Larry or Adam left the band.

? ? As for you point about Guns N' Roses haveing an advantage over these old band like the Doors and Queen and Lynard Skynard because they're making new music, well yeah. That is true but still the general public is always going to think of this band as a mockery of Guns N' Roses. In the long run mayeb this band can distinguish themslves from the old band by gaining younger fans who aren't familiar with the old band but you'll always have fans like myself who slightly or more than slightly resent the fact that Axl calls this band Guns N' Roses. Imagine if Velvet Revolver was called Guns N' Roses. The outrage from the Axl fans would be huge and yet VR is? much more Guns N' Roses than Gusn N' Roses are. Personally I think it's a cop out for Axl to use the name. It gaurentees publicity no matter what. It'll sell albums based on the curiosity factor and don't tell me it won't. The average music listener(not music fan) knows Guns N' Roses. They don't necessarily know Axl Rose.? Like I said before I'm over the anme thing and can deal with it I just thik it would've been alot cooler and more gutsy on Axl's part to come up with a new name.

[Howard2k]

So assuming that it's not OK for Axl to use the name GNR.? ?But it was ok with the original members.? ?At what point does it transition from "ok" to "not ok"?


Phase I - AFD Line-up
.....
Phase x - Current Line-up.

We had a bunch of changes between then and now.

So is it ok for them to use the GNR name if they have one band member change?? What if they had two changes?? Or three?? At what point does it just become "wrong"?

[zakas80]

uggh...people are talking about U2 on here...excuse me while i go vomit!

[Bono]

So assuming that it's not OK for Axl to use the name GNR.? ?But it was ok with the original members.? ?At what point does it transition from "ok" to "not ok"?


Phase I - AFD Line-up
.....
Phase x - Current Line-up.

We had a bunch of changes between then and now.

So is it ok for them to use the GNR name if they have one band member change?? What if they had two changes?? Or three?? At what point does it just become "wrong"?

It's stops being o.k. when it's obvious one member wants to take full creative control and essentially forces the rest of the original members to leave.? Steven's departure was a decsion made by the entire band, Izzy quit on his own because it had gotten too big and it wasn't his thing anymore. You're still left with? 3 original members. Not to mention the fact that the band had been through numerous lineup changes since 1984 anyways. The core group(Izzy, Slash, Duff, Steven, Axl) had only been together for what?? 3 years tops before members started interchanging. So the departures of Izzy and Steven where not a real surprise. The way Slash and Duff left, got fired, quite, were forced out or whatever was a surprise to an extent and? has a lot to do with the name issue now not being o.k.? Also Slash and Duff were not cool with the name thing in the begining and I'm sure they're not cool with it now. In fact I've heard it straight form Duff's mouth how embarrsed he was with the disaster that was the 2002 tour because to him that was his band(Guns N' Roses). Thosse ghuys aren't cool with it don't kid yourself. They've just put it behind them.The same way myself and many others are not cool with it. I think it's stupid but it is what it is.? I think it's ridiculous how some of you try to justify it when the same people doing so would trash the shit outta Slash and Duff if they had the name Guns N' Roses. All we'd hear would be people bitching and moaning about how can they be Guns N' Roses without Axl Rose.

uggh...people are talking about U2 on here...excuse me while i go vomit!

Nice to see you have somethig intelligent to add

[BLS-Pride]

So assuming that it's not OK for Axl to use the name GNR.   But it was ok with the original members.   At what point does it transition from "ok" to "not ok"?


Phase I - AFD Line-up
.....
Phase x - Current Line-up.

We had a bunch of changes between then and now.

So is it ok for them to use the GNR name if they have one band member change?  What if they had two changes?  Or three?  At what point does it just become "wrong"?

It's stops being o.k. when it's obvious one member wants to take full creative control and essentially forces the rest of the original members to leave.  Steven's departure was a decsion made by the entire band, Izzy quit on his own because it had gotten too big and it wasn't his thing anymore. You're still left with  3 original members. Not to mention the fact that the band had been through numerous lineup changes since 1984 anyways. The core group(Izzy, Slash, Duff, Steven, Axl) had only been together for what?  3 years tops before members started interchanging. So the departures of Izzy and Steven where not a real surprise. The way Slash and Duff left, got fired, quite, were forced out or whatever was to an extent and  has a lot to do with the name issue now not being o.k.  Also Slash and Duff were not cool with the name thing in the begining and I'm sure they're not cool with it now. In fact I've heard it straight form Duff's mouth how embarrsed he was with the disaster that was the 2002 tour because to him that was his band(Guns N' Roses). Thosse ghuys aren't cool with it don't kid yourself. They've just put it behind them.The same way myself and many others are not cool with it. I think it's stupid but it is what it is.  I think it's ridiculous how some of you try to justify it when the same people doing so would trash the shit outta Slash and Duff if they had the name Guns N' Roses. All we'd hear would be people bitching and moaning about how can they be Guns N' Roses without Axl Rose.

Brilliant. Everyone needs to take a reading of that. Great post indeed.

[Howard2k]

Thanks Bono,  great answer.

I'm a KISS fan and they're had more than their share of line-up changes too.   I don't think there's a simple answer to the question I posed and you didn't disappoint me

[Bono]

Thanks Bono,? great answer.

I'm a KISS fan and they're had more than their share of line-up changes too.? ?I don't think there's a simple answer to the question I posed and you didn't disappoint me

Well thank you. Thank you very much

[GunnerOne 84]

Most people have a valid point, Guns is different to different people. I was not old enough to see them when they were big, so it is most likely easier for someone my age to say it is guns n roses. Maybe someone who was my age when the were touring on the illusions albums has much harder time accepting this as guns, and that is fine by me as well. To me, it is about the music, and axl seems to be heading in the right direction, though he really needs to get this album out. I think people may be more ready to accept them as guns once that happens. However for the record i would love to see slash and axl on stage together, as i never had the chance. Hopefully one day that will happen again.

[TOPGUNner]

About calling either this incarnation of Guns and Roses "Guns and Roses" or calling Velvet Revolver Guns and Roses, you gotta think about how your looking at it. To say that Velvet Revolver is more GNR, do you mean in the respect that more members of the old GNR are in VR?

The ONLY reason I'm OK calling this version of Guns and Roses, Guns and Roses, is the music. Velvet Revolver doesn't sound like Guns to me, but Axl's new GNR sounds like the GNR sound, just updated.

I don't think we should judge who's more Guns and Roses based on how many ex-gunners are in a band, we should judge it on the music itself.

TOPGUNner for Prez