[RUMOR] Guitar Hero: Guns N' Roses?

[Jim Bob]

That would never happen, using 2008 band members to front 80s or 90s recordings. That would be very wrong.
I'm deff on side of the people who think the 2008 line up should front new original music.

they should front GUNS N ROSES music, new and old.

[freddiebrph]

I dont agree. I think any thing coming out featuring NEW music should be the NEW guys. But the classics have nothing to do with these guys.

you are wrong.  this band is Guns N' Roses, the songs are Guns N' Roses songs.

Maybe you and I should join gnr, would we get credit for SCOM? I dont think so. In reality it has nothing to do with who owns the name. At the end of Bid Daddy with Adam Sandler, if you look closely it says "scom, performed by gnr, written by axl, slash, and so on

I'd love to join GnR, but I don't think I have the chops.   and the band is fine the way it is.   It has NOTHING to do with writing credits.

The new guys are covering it, but it has nothing to do with them.

Bullshit.  Its Guns N' Roses playing Guns N' Roses songs.   Someone leaves the band/walks out/gets fired, another guy comes in and takes his place.  Its not a whole new band, its a continuation of GnR.    And it would be GREAT to see the band do something like this to even further seperate itself from certain individuals who are no longer in the band.

So, using your logic (which makes no sense). if this nugnr never releases any new music, and just plays the old bands material. IF gnr get into the rock hall, it should be these guys? Guys who can play the music, put on a great show, but never wrote a note to the classic songs the gnr family loves? Using your words, "this is gnr". Fuck slash, duff, izzy, and all the others responsible, this is who "bought" the music, so it has nothing to do with the old band?

[Jim Bob]

So, using your logic (which makes no sense).

yet it makes sense to dwell on shit that happened 20 years ago?   

if this nugnr never releases any new music, and just plays the old bands material.

here is where you are fucking up.   there is no such thing as nugnr, you talk about it like its 2 different bands.

look at it this way - members left, members were replaced.. its still the same band, Guns N' Roses.

IF gnr get into the rock hall, it should be these guys? Guys who can play the music, put on a great show, but never wrote a note to the classic songs the gnr family loves?

it will probably involve everyone who had something to do with the band on some level.

Using your words, "this is gnr". Fuck slash, duff, izzy, and all the others responsible, this is who "bought" the music, so it has nothing to do with the old band?

bought?

[TK1]

I sort of side with the crowd saying the songs by the original line up should be left alone.  I think the best solution, if they could ever pull it off, would be to have a game with the Appetite / UYI songs as recorded by the original members as well as some new tracks featuring the newer guys.  They could then still incorporate the newer guys into the game while still preserving the classic line up.  No offense against the new guys because I love 'em, but everybody here mostly agrees Appetite is a classic album and all the songs on it should be left alone.  Plus, I couldn't imagine any of the new guys would want to be marketed with a game that features all or mostly songs they didn't have any artistic input on.  They are solid musicians; let the public make their opinion of them based solely on the material they contributed on...

[Feel_The_Burn]

So, using your logic (which makes no sense).

yet it makes sense to dwell on shit that happened 20 years ago?   

if this nugnr never releases any new music, and just plays the old bands material.

here is where you are fucking up.   there is no such thing as nugnr, you talk about it like its 2 different bands.

look at it this way - members left, members were replaced.. its still the same band, Guns N' Roses.

IF gnr get into the rock hall, it should be these guys? Guys who can play the music, put on a great show, but never wrote a note to the classic songs the gnr family loves?

it will probably involve everyone who had something to do with the band on some level.

Using your words, "this is gnr". Fuck slash, duff, izzy, and all the others responsible, this is who "bought" the music, so it has nothing to do with the old band?

bought?

Your problem is you think any speaking of the past is "dwelling" , which it isn't.  Am I dwelling on the past by listening to AFD?? By saying I think that Slash plays his OWN material better? I love the band for what it is , but I won't lie. I think Axl's vocals have gotten INSANE the past year  , in '02 it sounded like shit , but of course there where people back then saying the same thing " THIS is Guns N Roses" , if the entire line up changed today I wonder if Jim Bob would stand on the same stand point as he does the AFD era....

[Jim Bob]

Your problem is you think any speaking of the past is "dwelling" , which it isn't.  Am I dwelling on the past by listening to AFD?? By saying I think that Slash plays his OWN material better?

dude, all you want to do is talk about the past.   thats all you seem to care about judging from your posts.

I love the band for what it is , but I won't lie. I think Axl's vocals have gotten INSANE the past year  , in '02 it sounded like shit , but of course there where people back then saying the same thing " THIS is Guns N Roses"

the band in 2002 was guns n roses, I saw them.   in fact everyone of those guys are still in the band today with the exception of one guy.     

if the entire line up changed today I wonder if Jim Bob would stand on the same stand point as he does the AFD era....

i love when people suggest what i would do given a hypothetical situation that has about .0001% chances of happening.   It just shows they are grasping at straws.

[1987]

Your problem is you think any speaking of the past is "dwelling" , which it isn't.  Am I dwelling on the past by listening to AFD?? By saying I think that Slash plays his OWN material better?

dude, all you want to do is talk about the past.   thats all you seem to care about judging from your posts.

I love the band for what it is , but I won't lie. I think Axl's vocals have gotten INSANE the past year  , in '02 it sounded like shit , but of course there where people back then saying the same thing " THIS is Guns N Roses"

the band in 2002 was guns n roses, I saw them.   in fact everyone of those guys are still in the band today with the exception of one guy.     

if the entire line up changed today I wonder if Jim Bob would stand on the same stand point as he does the AFD era....

i love when people suggest what i would do given a hypothetical situation that has about .0001% chances of happening.   It just shows they are grasping at straws.

dude you are completely irrational and impossible to have have a reasonable debate with.  for the 100th time.. i like the current line up... but they are not a continuation of GNR..   its a completely different band with the exception of axl and dizzy to an extent...  i'm not in anyway taking anything away from the new guys...  just stating the facts.  guns n roses would be nothing if it wasn't for the songs that axl, slash, duff, izzy, and steven wrote, and recorded.  on the other hand.. GNR would be in the exact same place the are in now...if bumble foot, fink ect. were never part odf gnr..


by your ridiculous logic... velvet revolver is the same as stone temple pilots, and baz's new band is skid row, and audio slave is soundgarden... other than the fact that axl kept the gnr name... please tell me what the difference is from the examples i've mentioned.   

oh, and by the way.. i'm here because i like the new band and i'm interested in what they are doing and when the will release some new music or tour.    i have no interest in hearing them cover songs from 15 years ago.  or want a video game with axl and 6 other guys that have zero to do with the songs on the game.  you cant have your cake and eat it too.

[Jim Bob]

dude you are completely irrational and impossible to have have a reasonable debate with.  for the 100th time.. i like the current line up... but they are not a continuation of GNR..   its a completely different band with the exception of axl and dizzy to an extent...  i'm not in anyway taking anything away from the new guys...  just stating the facts.

those are not facts.    That is your bullshit slash propganda.

by your ridiculous logic... velvet revolver is the same as stone temple pilots, and baz's new band is skid row, and audio slave is soundgarden... other than the fact that axl kept the gnr name... please tell me what the difference is from the examples i've mentioned. 

Guns N' Roses is Guns N' Roses.

I have no interest in hearing them cover songs from 15 years ago.  or want a video game with axl and 6 other guys that have zero to do with the songs on the game.  you cant have your cake and eat it too.

for the last time, its not covers, its GnR playing GnR songs.   Who gives a fuck who wrote it.. do you sit there and analyze a live performance that closely that it seriously matters who wrote what when it comes to playing something live?   Just more of your slash propganda that would be better suited for another site.

[1987]

by your ridiculous logic... velvet revolver is the same as stone temple pilots, and baz's new band is skid row, and audio slave is soundgarden... other than the fact that axl kept the gnr name... please tell me what the difference is from the examples i've mentioned. 

Guns N' Roses is Guns N' Roses.


[/quote]

finally we agree on something.  axl decided to keep the gnr name is the only difference..

actually there is a difference.. all of those bands mostly play new material that THEY created together and throw in a few songs from their old bands as crowd pleasers..  Axl plays mostly material he created with his old band and throws in a few songs the band created together.

[Feel_The_Burn]

dude you are completely irrational and impossible to have have a reasonable debate with.  for the 100th time.. i like the current line up... but they are not a continuation of GNR..   its a completely different band with the exception of axl and dizzy to an extent...  i'm not in anyway taking anything away from the new guys...  just stating the facts.

those are not facts.    That is your bullshit slash propganda.

by your ridiculous logic... velvet revolver is the same as stone temple pilots, and baz's new band is skid row, and audio slave is soundgarden... other than the fact that axl kept the gnr name... please tell me what the difference is from the examples i've mentioned. 

Guns N' Roses is Guns N' Roses.

I have no interest in hearing them cover songs from 15 years ago.  or want a video game with axl and 6 other guys that have zero to do with the songs on the game.  you cant have your cake and eat it too.

for the last time, its not covers, its GnR playing GnR songs.   Who gives a fuck who wrote it.. do you sit there and analyze a live performance that closely that it seriously matters who wrote what when it comes to playing something live?   Just more of your slash propganda that would be better suited for another site.

You have fucking issues. Slash Propaganda?! 

A band goes well beyond just a name , Guns N' Roses is Gun N' Roses , by name you are correct. It's funny how when presented with the argument of STP is VR , Soundgarden is Audioslave etc... your response is GNR is GNR....  Sorry but Slash Propaganda. We aren't some spies who are brain washing people with evil "slash propaganda"

[1987]

dude you are completely irrational and impossible to have have a reasonable debate with.  for the 100th time.. i like the current line up... but they are not a continuation of GNR..   its a completely different band with the exception of axl and dizzy to an extent...  i'm not in anyway taking anything away from the new guys...  just stating the facts.

those are not facts.    That is your bullshit slash propganda.

dude, your dealer must have some seriously good shit... without giving me some bull shit response .. just tell what i said.. that you quoted,  isn't 100%, none negotiable, stating the obvious fact?

this board is just fine for me.. i think you might be better off checking out some sites that might be better for you.  such as 
 http://www.fairview.org/healthlibrary/content/bha_delusion_bha.htm

[Jim Bob]

finally we agree on something.  axl decided to keep the gnr name is the only difference..

actually there is a difference.. all of those bands mostly play new material that THEY created together and throw in a few songs from their old bands as crowd pleasers..  Axl plays mostly material he created with his old band and throws in a few songs the band created together.

don't twist my words.   The band that recorded AFD back in the 80s was Guns N' Roses, the band that was touring Japan last year is Guns N' Roses.   Its an evolution, not a new band.   

[Skunk]

Where did you draw the line? When did GNR become a different band?
There was a point when Steven and Izzy had already left, and i can't help but think if Duff had left too, this argument still wouldn't have emerged. In that sense i do think it is a lot about Slash with some of you.
Well it wasn't up to any of you to decide if GNR was done or not. It was up to Axl. He didn't form a new band under the same name, he continued GNR with new members. The distinction is not for you to decide.

It's no use trying to compare to other bands, because there's no one formula. Brian May and Roger Taylor tour under the name Queen, without John Deacon or Freddie Mercury! (Mercury obviously is dead, and Deacon retired).
In the case of GNR, all the members (except maybe Steven) seem to be happy with what they're doing now, AND when Izzy wanted on stage, Axl was more than happy to invite him.
People go to a GNR concert to see GNR, not to see a new band that does some GNR covers. It has to do with that old Axl quote that was something like "I never had any intention of denying you (the fans) something you love."

And it's not about taking credit away from the old lineup. Of course the songs they wrote still belong to them. Of course they should get into the Rock Hall for AFD and Illusions. It's just that they're not in GNR anymore. When something is released with the GNR name, why would it involve anyone who is not in GNR? The writing credits will have the names of those who wrote the songs, new or old, and any pictures images new performances or lists that start with "Guns N Roses is..." will have the current members. Which to me, seems obvious.

[pilferk]

Yes, it happened. I'm pretty sure at least the guitars and vocals were rerecorded. As far as vocals, you should check this thread:

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=50094.0

But yeah, I know it would be way harder now. I just said its still kinda possible, although I don't think it would happen at all.

From the thread you list, it doesn't mention anything about the guitars being rerecorded.  In fact, the only info in that thread seems to indicate the guitars and percussion were left alone.

That "jives" with what I've always thought/heard/assumed, too.

That Axl re-recorded vocals, but he was really the ONLY one recording anything.  While the others had "input" on the tracks, out of necessity to get it done, he was really masterminding the project.

Given the "shenanigans" afterwards (the re-recorded SCOM, the ATTEMPT to get a re-recorded WTTJ into Black Hawk Down, and the ensuing lawsuits), I'm not sure that would be copasetic with the "old" membership, now.

[pilferk]

No point in doing those things, to boot. Here we're talking about guitar hero GNR, aka current band, not a game of ex gunners.
By New versions I meant GNRs, current you may not the formers or remastered old recordings.
and no it needn't be like the aerosmith one.
why the neigh(?) impossible GH3 deal became possible in the end  I wonder.

Then you would not be able to use ANY of the old catalog.  Because either the new band would need to re-record it...somthing the "old membership" has proven they won't allow...or the "old membership" is going to have to reunite to re-record the old material.  ONE of those things would need to happen, if it was going to go the route that Aerosmith is going.  The devs don't want old master tracks.  They want the band to be actively involved in creating the games....so you have to go one of the two routes described above.

The GH3 deal wasn't "neigh impossible". It was difficult.  Because it was using ONE song, and an old master track to boot, it eventually got done

Which is nothing like what we're talking about here.  You're talking about ratcheting up the degree of difficulty by huge factors (both number of tracks AND remaster/rerecording of those tracks).

Let me put it like this:

It's hard to build a house.  It's almost impossible to build 20 houses, on top of old houses, with a construction crew that constantly bickers about ever design decision, really dislikes even being in the same place at the same time, and needs the architect to negotiate the placement of every single nail, all at the same time, in a week.

That's sort of what the devs would need to undertake with GnR.  Because there are time, design, and development constraints they need to adhere to....it can't be an open ended process that drags on for 6 to 8 months at a time.

[pilferk]

they should front GUNS N ROSES music, new and old.

The thing is...and I hate to beat a dead horse...is that the "old membership" still has say in how that material is used, especially in relation to publishing (which this would be) rights.

And, as the "Black Hawk Down" scenario pretty clearly showed, they are NOT going to allow the "current GnR" to re-record and front that old material.

So what's left?

[jarmo]

If you wanna continue talking about whether or not GN'R is GN'R, which it is, take it to Dead Horse.

GN'R still exists no matter how much you wish for it not to.




/jarmo

[Voodoochild]

When GNR released November Rain video, I don't remember people bitching about having Gilby instead of Izzy there.

Anyways, would be awesome to have two guitars joysticks playing at the same time for more complex stuff of the new band, like the TWAT ending.

Yes, it happened. I'm pretty sure at least the guitars and vocals were rerecorded. As far as vocals, you should check this thread:

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=50094.0

But yeah, I know it would be way harder now. I just said its still kinda possible, although I don't think it would happen at all.

From the thread you list, it doesn't mention anything about the guitars being rerecorded.  In fact, the only info in that thread seems to indicate the guitars and percussion were left alone.

I clearly said "as far as vocals" when I indicate that thread.

That "jives" with what I've always thought/heard/assumed, too.

That Axl re-recorded vocals, but he was really the ONLY one recording anything.  While the others had "input" on the tracks, out of necessity to get it done, he was really masterminding the project.

Im pretty sure the guitars were rerecorded too. I can hear the difference, as I said in that thread.

[ppbebe]

No point in doing those things, to boot. Here we're talking about guitar hero GNR, aka current band, not a game of ex gunners.
By New versions I meant GNRs, current, not the formers or remastered old recordings.
and no it needn't be like the aerosmith one.
why the neigh(?) impossible GH3 deal became possible in the end  I wonder.

Then you would not be able to use ANY of the old catalog.  Because either the new band would need to re-record it...somthing the "old membership" has proven they won't allow...or the "old membership" is going to have to reunite to re-record the old material.  ONE of those things would need to happen, if it was going to go the route that Aerosmith is going.  The devs don't want old master tracks.  They want the band to be actively involved in creating the games....so you have to go one of the two routes described above.

I fixed my messy bit in the quite.
l've never objected to re recorded old songs by the current/cd era band and the current/cd era characters being featured in the game.

you erased your words I quoted but you said 'to remaster' and not 'to rerecord', which reminded me of something like greatest hits (remastered).

I would expect that if the WTTJ deal was considered "hard" by the devs, that a deal involving ALL the GnR material, through UYI, would be "harder".  All things considered.

And getting the "old" band together to rerecord the "old" material would be neigh impossible.  Getting the "old" members permission for the current version of GnR to remaster the "old" material would also, I think, prove to be neigh impossible.

The GH3 deal wasn't "neigh impossible". It was difficult.  Because it was using ONE song, and an old master track to boot, it eventually got done

Which is nothing like what we're talking about here.  You're talking about ratcheting up the degree of difficulty by huge factors (both number of tracks AND remaster/rerecording of those tracks).

anyhoo axl's side agreed to their using the track.
When there is something I'd like to be realised, I prospect for its possibilities rather than its 'neigh' (what this horse doing here? ) impossibility.

I think a game is a good way to introduce the members and again it doesn't necessarily need to be done like the aerosmith GH.

[pilferk]

I fixed my messy bit in the quite.
l've never objected to re recorded old songs by the current/cd era band and the current/cd era characters being featured in the game.

YOU might not.  I think....no, I'm almost certain...the "old" membership would.  Or is that what you're saying?  That you're not arguing the point that it wouldn't happen?

you erased your words I quoted but you said 'to remaster' and not 'to rerecord', which reminded me of something like greatest hits (remastered).

I would expect that if the WTTJ deal was considered "hard" by the devs, that a deal involving ALL the GnR material, through UYI, would be "harder".  All things considered.

And getting the "old" band together to rerecord the "old" material would be neigh impossible.  Getting the "old" members permission for the current version of GnR to remaster the "old" material would also, I think, prove to be neigh impossible.

You're right.  It's a typo.  What I MEANT was:

" Getting the "old" members permission for the current version of GnR to rerecord the "old" material would also, I think, prove to be neigh impossible.

The GH3 deal wasn't "neigh impossible". It was difficult.  Because it was using ONE song, and an old master track to boot, it eventually got done

Which is nothing like what we're talking about here.  You're talking about ratcheting up the degree of difficulty by huge factors (both number of tracks AND remaster/rerecording of those tracks).

anyhoo axl's side agreed to their using the track.

Which, as I've explained, is quite different than using an entire catalog, and tinkering with it to update it.  I don't think...hell, I KNOW..that the use of ONE track isn't really a great indication, one way or the other, of what's being proposed.  Disagree if you like.

When there is something I'd like to be realised, I prospect for its possibilities rather than its 'neigh' (what this horse doing here? ) impossibility.

I think a game is a good way to introduce the members and again it doesn't necessarily need to be done like the aerosmith GH.

Wanting something and seeing it as being realistic isn't the same thing.

I WANT GH: Guns n Roses.  I REALIZE it's unlikely, by looking at the situation logically, at the past contention in using even the smallest bit of material, at the current "tension" between the old membership and the current band members (especially Axl) and call it like I see it.  I'm perfectly willing to allow for disagreement.  I respect someone having a different opinion...I just don't see a strong basis for it.  Single Tracks in GTA, GH II, GHIII, and Burnout just aren't compelling examples because they're so different than what we're talking about being necessary here.

As for "it doesn't have to be like Aerosmith's GH"...well, the thing is..that's what the devs want.  THAT kind of band involvement. That kind of material.  It's what they see as a way to differentiate THEIR product from "Rock Band".  So while YOU wouldn't mind seeing it be "different", it's not the direction the devs have said they want to go in, and have now headed in.

Remember, this is ultimately a business project, not a fan circle jerk.  The ultimate goal is to create a product that appeals to the masses, with the least effort yielding the most amount of money. I just don't see HOW they could enter into a deal with GnR, all things considered.  They would likely not be able to get exactly what they want as far as material, the process would take (if history is any indication) an inordinately long time, and it would be filled with contention.  Why bother?  You think GH: Guns n Roses would sell better than, say, an offering from another, "easier" band to work with like Metallica or Kiss or U2? Honestly?  Unless they could bring about a full scale reunion (unlikley)..working with what they'd likely have to work with....I just can't see it.