Robin leaving? Just touring?

[overmatik]

Trent would never lock Robin, if Robin wants to tour with GNR he is free to go anytime he wants!

[TomFriend]

After all this time and all these lineup changes, you'd think people could be satisfied just with saying "Guns N' Roses is Axl Rose plus whoever's backing him up."

It's not really "backing up" when you bring in everybody into the band and work together.

It is when everyone else in the band could leave, and he'd still call it Guns N' Roses.

And I'm not here to argue semantics. All bands back up their singers/frontmen.

[jarmo]

After all this time and all these lineup changes, you'd think people could be satisfied just with saying "Guns N' Roses is Axl Rose plus whoever's backing him up."

It's not really "backing up" when you bring in everybody into the band and work together.

It is when everyone else in the band could leave, and he'd still call it Guns N' Roses.

And I'm not here to argue semantics. All bands back up their singers/frontmen.

I don't think you get what I'm saying.

Everybody in the band is brought in to work together. The result is Guns N' Roses.



Now if it was a solo thing, the artist would probably not go through that kind of process.


Obviously in both cases the musicians "back up" the artist/front man.

But there are differences.



Also, those that think a band member leaving now would mean it's not GN'R anymore, would it become GN'R again if that line up recorded an album? 

Like this:

Line-up1 of Band X records an album. A band member leaves for some reason and is replaced. Band X now has line-up2.
Line-up2 records album and tours. Is the band now back to being Band X because the recording line-up is the one touring?

 




/jarmo

[TomFriend]

After all this time and all these lineup changes, you'd think people could be satisfied just with saying "Guns N' Roses is Axl Rose plus whoever's backing him up."

It's not really "backing up" when you bring in everybody into the band and work together.

It is when everyone else in the band could leave, and he'd still call it Guns N' Roses.

And I'm not here to argue semantics. All bands back up their singers/frontmen.

I don't think you get what I'm saying.

Everybody in the band is brought in to work together. The result is Guns N' Roses.



Now if it was a solo thing, the artist would probably not go through that kind of process.


Obviously in both cases the musicians "back up" the artist/front man.

But there are differences.



Also, those that think a band member leaving now would mean it's not GN'R anymore, would it become GN'R again if that line up recorded an album? 

Like this:

Line-up1 of Band X records an album. A band member leaves for some reason and is replaced. Band X now has line-up2.
Line-up2 records album and tours. Is the band now back to being Band X because the recording line-up is the one touring?

 




/jarmo

I see exactly what you're saying, but as far as I understand - yes, Guns N' Roses is a collaborative group. Each member contributes to the music produced during their tenure. However, the lineup changes often and the band remains 'Guns N' Roses' with Axl as the only constant. If Axl left, he'd take the name with him, since he owns it.

So I don't think my original assessment that GNR = Axl Rose + his band was wide of the mark.

[IKnowWhereIAM]

Sometimes we really need to get on with things...stop beating a dead horse...GnR is a bus, driven by Axl, and whomever is on that bus is 'in GnR'.  You are both right in your own way...but since I am not a referee, go on.   

Robin is gone and all we can really talk about now is what he did for the band, and if he will come back again...I for one don't really sweat this, because BBF and 4tus can get on fine, and if Axl needs someone else, I am sure he will do well at finding the right guy.

[Olorin]

After all this time and all these lineup changes, you'd think people could be satisfied just with saying "Guns N' Roses is Axl Rose plus whoever's backing him up."

It's not really "backing up" when you bring in everybody into the band and work together.

It is when everyone else in the band could leave, and he'd still call it Guns N' Roses.

And I'm not here to argue semantics. All bands back up their singers/frontmen.

I don't think you get what I'm saying.

Everybody in the band is brought in to work together. The result is Guns N' Roses.



Now if it was a solo thing, the artist would probably not go through that kind of process.


Obviously in both cases the musicians "back up" the artist/front man.

But there are differences.



Also, those that think a band member leaving now would mean it's not GN'R anymore, would it become GN'R again if that line up recorded an album? 

Like this:

Line-up1 of Band X records an album. A band member leaves for some reason and is replaced. Band X now has line-up2.
Line-up2 records album and tours. Is the band now back to being Band X because the recording line-up is the one touring?

 




/jarmo

That doesnt work, if Axl quits, could a group, lets call them  Band C, consisting of Buckethead, Brain, Ron, Richard, Robin, Dizzy, Tommy and Pitman tour under the name Guns N Roses?

[D]

Guns N Roses is now like Nine Inch Nails whereas its a 'Band" but Guns N Roses right now is Axl Rose.

IF everyone in this band were to quit, Axl would replace them and still call it Guns N Roses. So basically, whatever band is around Axl is considered Guns N Roses.

U make a good point.

Robin,Bucket,Tommy,Brain couldn't hire a singer and call it Guns N Roses.

Axl owns the name it is HIS band.

It isn't a "solo" project because Axl collaborated with these guys in the song writing project.

If every song was like NR and written exclusively by Axl, it would then be more of a solo band.

[The Catcher]

After all this time and all these lineup changes, you'd think people could be satisfied just with saying "Guns N' Roses is Axl Rose plus whoever's backing him up."

It's not really "backing up" when you bring in everybody into the band and work together. Ron and Frank are on the album too.

If it was the solo project some of you label it to be, then why is it a band effort?



Sure, Axl's the front man and he's been there since day one.


The most amusing part is that when you ask these people who call it a solo project, when it stopped being a band and many of them have different answers!

So just because the band has changed members, it's a solo project? So, GN'R changed members before recording their first album, I guess it wasn't band then either? Oh no, your guy was in the band so it was ok....

1990, new drummer. The line-up changed, was it a solo project?

1991, Izzy left, solo project? Etc etc etc. 


I guess for some, you have reached some sort of magical amount of line up changes. I guess it's in your rock n' roll rule book or something.

Good for you.





/jarmo

People like me and Jarmo who've actually paid attention to what these members that you talk about have actually said over the years, instead of just making up our own facts to back up or prejudice opinions, know that every fucking one of them has vigourously denied that this is an Axl Rose solo project, and that they are very much involved in the creative project, even bringing in their own songs. This is not Nine Inch Nails. Get a clue.

[Alfie Bones]

I see exactly what you're saying, but as far as I understand - yes, Guns N' Roses is a collaborative group. Each member contributes to the music produced during their tenure. However, the lineup changes often and the band remains 'Guns N' Roses' with Axl as the only constant. If Axl left, he'd take the name with him, since he owns it.

So I don't think my original assessment that GNR = Axl Rose + his band was wide of the mark.

Then why doesn't Sebastian Bach's "Angel Down" have three songs featuring Guns N' Roses?

That's what Trent Reznor did. He'd write songs for soundtracks and such and credit it to Nine Inch Nails, because the live band members aren't relevant. He is the band.

Axl never did that, even if he did make the other members of the band hand over ownership. As long as Dizzy is there, your arguments are baseless. He's been in the band since '90 and was close friends with the band since '85.

[Skunk]

I think it's also important to realize that Guns N Roses means something and represents something. Axl knows better than anyone what that is and he's been putting together this album and this band with that in mind. I'm sure there could have been other great albums written by all these talented musicians, but Axl worked hard to not just make a great album, but to make a great Guns N Roses album. That doesn't just mean an album with him singing on it, it means a lot more than that.

[jarmo]

That doesnt work, if Axl quits, could a group, lets call them  Band C, consisting of Buckethead, Brain, Ron, Richard, Robin, Dizzy, Tommy and Pitman tour under the name Guns N Roses?

No. Different thing!

Axl is the constant through the band's whole history. If you wanna get down into details, shouldn't it mean "more" to replace something original than something that's not original?

A person who's been there through the band's whole history compared to someone who hasn't. Surely you must see the difference?



People are saying the band that recorded the album should stick together and so on. Which is kinda amusing considering the history of the band.

This is nothing new!

For example, people were saying it was weird that some of the songs are from the Buckethead era. The band has always used songs written by previous line ups!

Another example. When Izzy quit, he was a big part of the song writing for the UYI albums. Yet he didn't play shows or promote the albums after their release!

His departure didn't affect the way people enjoyed the albums as far as I remember.


Maybe some of you haven't experienced anything like this before (assuming Robin has left) and you're sad/upset/let down.

Which I can understand.

IF everyone in this band were to quit, Axl would replace them and still call it Guns N Roses. So basically, whatever band is around Axl is considered Guns N Roses.

I don't think you get it.

Part of the reason the album wasn't done in a week is because the band had to be rebuilt.

Making everybody work together and make it into Guns N' Roses!

It's not necessarily the fastest process.....

You're simplifying the whole thing!



/jarmo

[Henson]

I just can't understand, after all this time, why we are still having the "is it a band or solo project" argument.
It's a band, like a democracy, but with riffs.

[michaelvincent]

I don't think you get it.

Part of the reason the album wasn't done in a week is because the band had to be rebuilt.

Making everybody work together and make it into Guns N' Roses!

It's not necessarily the fastest process.....

You're simplifying the whole thing!

Yet many of those involved in the beginning stages, some of whom are credited players on CD, aren't with the band anymore or only peripherally involved at this time (Josh Freese, Paul Tobias, Buckethead, Brain, Robin...)

Let's not forget that while Ron Thal and Richard Fortus are in GnR, and are credited players on the album they are a lot later to the game and didn't have the level of involvement in the creation of these songs that others did. Josh Freese, who hasn't been on the project in 8 or 9 years (?) co-wrote the first song on the album with Axl. So yeah, your point is a good one, but you have to admit that to some extent it doesn't hold water.

On the other hand...this band business is an unpredictable mistress.

[Alfie Bones]

I think it's also important to realize that Guns N Roses means something and represents something. Axl knows better than anyone what that is and he's been putting together this album and this band with that in mind. I'm sure there could have been other great albums written by all these talented musicians, but Axl worked hard to not just make a great album, but to make a great Guns N Roses album. That doesn't just mean an album with him singing on it, it means a lot more than that.

Quite so. Liberturd was nothing like a GN'R album. Guns have been on Geffen for over 20 years, and I don't think that's going to change... while RCA just dropped VR.

[younggunner]

People are saying the band that recorded the album should stick together and so on. Which is kinda amusing considering the history of the band.

This is nothing new!

For example, people were saying it was weird that some of the songs are from the Buckethead era. The band has always used songs written by previous line ups!

Another example. When Izzy quit, he was a big part of the song writing for the UYI albums. Yet he didn't play shows or promote the albums after their release!

His departure didn't affect the way people enjoyed the albums as far as I remember.

Its new if you ask me. Prior to the new era of GNR, the history of GNR was that the majority of the members who played on an album toured on those albums.

Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy, and to a lesser extent, Steven, all toured AFD and the Illusions.

The real Chinese Democracy World tour will be missing 2 key lead guitarists and the drummer when it begins.

The Izzy example is out of context. Izzy(my 2nd fav old gnr member) was not the main attraction of the band. Axl and Slash were.

The proper example to compare Izzys departure with is Paul Tobias or Fortus.

Robin and Bucket are the Slash of the old lineup.

Like I said, your argument of how GNR was always a revolving door is somewhat out of context. The musicians who made the band famous all played on and toured for the majoirty of GNR shows. Then they left/quit/fired.

The band will go on. But please stop downplaying the loss of 2 lead guitarists.

Its a victory in itself that Axl was able to even get people to become fans of the new band. That should say something right there.

I think the majority of people feel that the band will go on but in terms of the "celebration" of CD , it has lost a little something because of Robins and to a lesser extent Buckets departures.

[Olorin]

Of course there is a difference between, say  Axl and Ron, everyone can see that.

But to pull out the "GN'R members have came and went" spiel, everytime someone quits is now becoming less and less of meaningful argument.

Whatever spin you put on it, that revolving door is damaging to the crediblity of this band.

[Alfie Bones]

Whatever spin you put on it, that revolving door is damaging to the crediblity of this band.

Yeah. Back in the olden days, Axl fired the drummers, nowadays people just quit or let their contracts run out.

[michaelvincent]

Whatever spin you put on it, that revolving door is damaging to the crediblity of this band.

On the other hand, every spot that has been vacated has been filled by a monster player.

At the end of the day there are some major league musicians in GnR, and you can't deny that Axl can pick a player.

[jarmo]

Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy, and to a lesser extent, Steven, all toured AFD and the Illusions.

Steven didn't play one show on the UYI tour. Izzy played the shows until August 91 (before album release) and a few shows in May 1993....

He wasn't there for a majority of the shows after the album's release and didn't take part in the music videos.

It was a loss of a guy who was there and started the band. A guy who co-wrote many of the hits.

The band kept going just like they should have.

The Izzy example is out of context. Izzy(my 2nd fav old gnr member) was not the main attraction of the band. Axl and Slash were.

So?

Sorry to have to break this news to you, but Buckethead isn't exactly up there either.....

Robin and Bucket are the Slash of the old lineup.

Did the band stop existing when he quit? No.

You keep bringing up credibility.

The band got through the above mentioned line up changes. You think Buckethead quitting is worse for the band's "credibility"?

The band will go on. But please stop downplaying the loss of 2 lead guitarists.

Downplaying? While you're rewriting history?

I'm not downplaying anything. Just stating the facts.

People go see Axl and GN'R at concerts. Not Buckethead with GN'R. Well maybe you....






/jarmo

[Alfie Bones]

Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy, and to a lesser extent, Steven, all toured AFD and the Illusions.

Steven didn't play one show on the UYI tour. Izzy played the shows until August 91 (before album release) and a few shows in May 1993....

He wasn't there for a majority of the shows after the album's release and didn't take part in the music videos.

You're right. He's probably referring to the fact that Steven played on Civil War, both live (at Farm Aid, most notably) and studio and as such was featured on Use Your Illusion II... but was long gone when the actual UYI Tour went down.