Do you think Slash misses playing some of his classic GNR solos live?

[CheapJon]

I think as long as he's playing stuff he likes then he's happy. So essentially I would guess that he really doesn't care if he's playing SCOM or STB as long as he's enjoying it.

i think he thinks it's funnier and more of a kick to play the songs that gets the most crowd response.. and i know that if he'd play gnr songs the crowd woulda loved that more then if he played vr or stp songs

[Jim Bob]

EDIT: So wait still why does AXL have the right to play them but not the other 4 ex members? No answer to that one...

Well, for one thing Axl is still in Guns N' Roses.   Huge difference between Guns N' Roses playing Guns N' Roses songs (whether or not the guys in the band now wrote the songs or not, they are Guns N' Roses songs) and VR playing GnR songs.

No its not in fact most of the people in the new guns n roses have no idea the thought put behind those songs. VR have every right to play those songs as does axl.

yes it is a huge difference and no it doesn't matter if the guys in the band wrote the songs or not.  If you joined a band as a guitar player at some point in the middle of that bands career, what songs will you be playing?

[estrangedpaul]

The name of the band is irrelevant. Its just a name. Remember, VR also play Nirvana and Pink Floyd songs so covering GnR and STP songs as well isn't a big deal. All bands do covers now and again when playing live. Its not like they re-recorded them.

All this stuff from Jim Bob and Stolat is nitpicking. If they wanna play the songs its their right. Just because they ain't in the band anymore doesn't mean they can't play the song.Roger Waters is a solo artist and is not a member of Pink Floyd but still plays Dark Side Of The Moon regularly. Robert Plant and the Strange Sensation playing Led Zepppelin is another example. I really don't see what's wrong with ex-members playing songs from a band they used to be in. Lots of people do it. They're entitled to play covers of any band they wish. The fact Axl has the GnR name is a technicality.

And yes, who wrote the songs is very important in deciding who has more right t play them. It's So Easy and Mr. Brownstone were largely written by Duff and Slash, along with Izzy and West Arkeen. Even HTGTH doesn't give Axl credit for either song. Writing credits is the biggest factor in who is entitled to play the songs. Even Axl said he wouldn't play Don't Cry because it was an Izzy song. He obviously changed his mind but the point still stands. Band name is irrelevant and a technicality, like I said.

Jim Bob and Stolat are just coming up with any reason to bash VR. VR's members have earned the right to do whatever they want with their career.

[stolat]

No. Your thinking on the matter is very limited. We say something that you may not like to hear about VR and suddenly it's nit picking. No. Just presenting you with another point of view. Of course an ethical discussion about - it is right for Weiland to sing GNR songs - has gone over your heads.

Ok. You've come to the conclusion that any band can play any god damn song they like. Good for them. Doesn't necessarily make it right.

[Naupis]

Of course an ethical discussion about - it is right for Weiland to sing GNR songs - has gone over your heads.

Well, if Slash/Duff want to play a couple of GNR tunes at their shows they need someone for vocals, correct?

Just as if Axl wants to play all of the old GNR songs he needs someone to play the instruments, correct?

Weiland singing a GNR song is no less ethical than Finck playing a Slash guitar solo. They are just filling out the other parts of the songs when the people who wrote them want to play them.

I guess you find it unethical that Plant, Mccartney and Waters play songs from their old bands even though they don't own the band name, and that every musician playing the rest of the songs is acting unethically as well.

According to the premise of your argument, the sole owner of a band name is the only person who should be entitled to play the songs, and that whether you wrote the song or not is irrelavent. I guess you are disgusted with Sebastian Bach then for playing Skid Row songs live because he doesn't own the band name either. What an unethical bumb. I guess his guitar players are unethical just like Weiland because they had nothing to do with the Skid Row songs.

You need to make sure you're consistent in applying the premise of your argument across the board. Singling out Weiland is ridiculous, because he is doing nothing different than any of the other musicians who play Guns songs with the original members that wrote them. Liking him or not liking him doesn't make him covering old GNR stuff any different than any of the other musicians doing it.

[Jim Bob]

no its completely different.  Finck is playing some of Slash's original solos because he replaced Slash in Guns N' Roses.  Just as Gilby played Izzy's parts because he replaced Izzy years and years ago.     Weiland on the other hand has nothing to do with GnR and that disrespectful asshole shouldn't even be touching GnR songs - given the way he has ran his mouth about Axl and clearly dispises everything the GnR legacy stands for..

[stolat]

Yes, Jim Bob that the the point, right on the nosey! 

[Naupis]

Weiland on the other hand has nothing to do with GnR and that disrespectful asshole shouldn't even be touching GnR songs - given the way he has ran his mouth about Axl and clearly dispises everything the GnR legacy stands for..

He plays in a band with 3 former GNR members, 2 of which contributed to the entire back catalog. When they choose to play a Guns song would you advocate they get another lead singer for those 2 songs every night?

Are you in the camp that suggests ownership of a brand name is the sole basis for playing the songs live, or do you fall in the class of those who believe if you wrote them you can play them?

Maybe Slash doesn't like the STP songs that much, but he plays them because they are his bandmates songs and a bandmember wants to play them. Scott singing on a GNR song is absolutely no different than Slash playing STP guitar parts. Besides, Scott has never said anything bad about GNR or the Guns legacy. Talking about Axl Rose in a negative fashion in no way constitutes not liking GNR, as impossible as that may be to believe.

Do you feel as passionately about every artist out there doing the exact same thing in terms of playing songs from previous members bands, or is it just because it is Scott? Richard Patrick does a few STP covers with the Deleo brothers for Army of Anyone, but I guess he has nothing to do with that band either so he should cease singing them immediately.

The  idea of it being not ethical is totally off the mark. Instead of concocting a straw man argument that those making the argument refuse to apply across the board to all other musicians in the same situation, just say you hate the guy and it drives you crazy he sings GNR songs with Slash, Duff.

Instead of tip-toeing around trying to use semantics to make a non-existant point people should just cut straight to the chase. The idea of their being an ethical component to this is absurd, and has nothing to do with ethics in the context of how it is being used in the original argument.

[stolat]

Our argument relates specifically to this particular situation. With ethics you have to consider the particular situation at hand. We are referring to Weiland and his open antagonism towards Axl.

[metallex78]

How did this turn into a Weiland dicussion? The original topic was whether Slash misses playing some of his classic GNR solos live, which I think he does, that was some of his best stuff!

[stolat]

Well, that's what the discussion turned into......happens........

We can discuss the issue on many levels. It's not so black and white as some people think. Furthermore, when people use the words retarded, nit picking and "oh, you just hate Scott".......one has to reply. But it is getting rather tiresome. I say tomato........how do say say it........

But yes, the idea of Slash secretly playing the classic GN'R riffs behind closed doors is very funny.

[Jim Bob]

Its just disgusting to see someone with no respect for the GnR legacy and no respect for the man whose words he sings, completely murdering GnR classics.  Sure, they have a right to play any song they want.  But VR should be their own band and quit playing the GnR classics.   

[metallex78]

Now now Jim Bob, I know it's down to personal opinion and all, but VR or Scott hardly murder the GN'R classics that they play. They sounded great when I saw them live.

[Naupis]

But VR should be their own band and quit playing the GnR classics. ?

Everyone has their own opinion on how strong VR's material is (and it is irrelevant in this context), but it is impossible to say they aren't their own band at this point considering they have released 2 albums and took the leap to put themselves out there and build their own identity. Being stuck in the past would be them playing setlists every night consisting of 70-80% STP and GNR songs with only a handful on new tracks from their albums.

I have seen you numerous times make the argument in defense of the GNR setlist that the old stuff is what the fans want to hear, so they have to play them. In the same vein people who never saw the original Guns would like to see Slash/Duff play a few Guns tunes.

If you goto a McCartney or Roger Waters concert you want to hear Beattles and Floyd stuff even though they are not in those bands anymore. That exact same logic applies to any ex-gunner, whether it be Steven/Izzy and Slash/Duff. Bach does it every night when he plays Skid Row songs, as well as most every other ex-member of a famous band.

You seem to be fixated on the idea that Scott hates GNR's legacy and such, yet there is no merit to it. He might not be fond of Axl, but that has no bearing on how he feels about the music guns made 15-20 years ago. The argument you are trying to make would be like telling someone who hates Barry Bonds that they automatically have to hate the Giants as well. It just isn't reality.

[stolat]

But VR should be their own band and quit playing the GnR classics. ?

You seem to be fixated on the idea that Scott hates GNR's legacy and such, yet there is no merit to it.

Yes, there is merit to it. You need to do some research here. You use the word "fixtated", there is reason for our argument to exist.

You seem fixtated on bringing the Beatles and Floyd into this. As I mentioned before, this particular situation does not apply to the Beatles or the Pink Floyd scenarios and we have already addressed your argument regarding the fact bands can play whatever they want  - doesn't always mean it is right.

Just accept the fact that some GNR fans are not so hunky dory with what VR stands for and deal with it.

[Ali]

Slash may have missed playing some of thos old parts, but I think he's moved on now.  He's more than enough to focus on with playing his VR parts.

Ali

[-Jack-]

But VR should be their own band and quit playing the GnR classics.   

You seem to be fixated on the idea that Scott hates GNR's legacy and such, yet there is no merit to it.

Yes, there is merit to it. You need to do some research here. You use the word "fixtated", there is reason for our argument to exist.

Back it up then. If you have no proof then your word means nothing. Scott has never dissed GN'R or it's legacy. FACT. The Giants/Barry Bonds argument is a perfect analogy here.

You seem fixtated on bringing the Beatles and Floyd into this. As I mentioned before, this particular situation does not apply to the Beatles or the Pink Floyd scenarios and we have already addressed your argument regarding the fact bands can play whatever they want  - doesn't always mean it is right.

I really cannot understand how a band playing covers is a BAD thing. Why is Slash and Duff playing songs they helped WRITE a bad thing? If you wrote something wouldn't you like to play it? It's already been said that Axl doesn't own the songs... so it's not a legal thing either.

Just accept the fact that some GNR fans are not so hunky dory with what VR stands for and deal with it.

Bro if you're biased, you're biased. I can deal with it. These guys have the freedom to play whatever they want and I'm glad they do as it's partially THEIR songs. They play em to have a good time and please some fans, not to smite Axl. I think that's what some people forget.

And btw, what does VR "stand for"? I'm interested.

[stolat]

Look dude, I'm bored by this. I raised a few points as to why I am not impressed by Weiland doing GN'R songs.

There is another thread on this board where members refer to comments made by Weiland. Read it. There was also a thread showing a photo where Scott is dressed up to parody Axl.

If you can't understand an argument based on ethics, then your not at the stage to have an ethical discussion with me. You keep going on about, but they helped write it......so what, I don't think it's right. NOT ETHICAL. Understand we are arguing at different levels.

Don't call me bro, I'm a chick. My ethical argument is not based on bias, that why it's an ethical argument.

Since you can't understand why I think it is wrong for Scott to sing GN'R songs, you certainly won't understand what I think VR stand for.

Also, learn to identify when a discussion has come to an end. For me it was several posts ago. END OF DISCUSSION.

[metallex78]

You're so sexy when you get all worked up like that stolat...

[Naupis]

Just accept the fact that some GNR fans are not so hunky dory with what VR stands for and deal with it.

What does VR and what they stand for have to do with whether or not it is ethical for Scott Weiland to be singing GNR cover songs?

I bring in the Beatles and Floyd comments because the situations are exactly the same as what goes on in terms of playing popular songs from their old bands. You dismiss those comments because it debunks your theory that Slash & Duff are unethical for playing Guns songs when I have established that what they are doing is standard protocal in the world of music for every other artist who is in a similar situation.

Your lack of outrage at any act partaking in playing songs from their old bands suggests you are not very passionate about the principle of the argument you are trying to make. If you really believed artists shouldn't be doing that, you would be applying your standard across the board and you are clearly unwilling to do that.

When you try and cherry pick only certain instances of artists doing this the way you have it lends itself to the idea you are just trying to promote some kind of agenda because the arguments you are making aren't important enough to you to be consistent to every artist partaking in these activities.

You are very limited in your understanding of the idea of ethics.

It is either ethical for any artists to play songs from their old bands or it is not. End of story, no gray area, and no case sensitivity.

Debating about whether it is right or wrong for them to do it is an entirely different conversation than whether or not it is ethical. They are mutually exclusive things.

It is a logical fallacy for you to argue as you have that the act of an artist playing music from an old band they were a member of is wrong in VR's case, but right in other artists cases.

Weiland, what VR stand for, and all the other directions you have pulled the conversation are to divert attention away from the fact your orginal premise that what they are doing is not ethical is wrong.