GUNS N' ROSES NAMES DJ ASHBA AS BAND'S NEWEST AXEMAN

[russtcb]

I know that I'm just anxious to GNR live ASAP and I'm really hoping DJ fits in and kicks ass. I have to assume he will.

[jarmo]

Excellent post, and I don't think even Jarmo can dispute what you say.
This is what is on the minds of a lot of true gnr fans like ourselves.

Well the band's line ups have changed since 1990, so to start getting "upset" about it 19 years later seems a bit weird to me....

I also find it amusing how you label yourself a "true GN'R fan". Whatever works for you I guess. 



/jarmo

[Jim Bob]

I know that I'm just anxious to GNR live ASAP and I'm really hoping DJ fits in and kicks ass. I have to assume he will.

I would assume he will too

[gilld1]

A band is not a picture from a moment in time. It's a dynamic thing, constantly evolving. If you see it as a certain picture, you are hanging on to a memory and not supporting the actual band. Bands move on. They evolve. Axl is not the first to do what he does, by the way. That is, being the sole remaining original member. Far from it. He just catches so much more SHIT for it than others because he's the guy everyone loves to hate.

By the way, let me ask you people a question, those of you who have problems with line-up changes. I don't like football much, or soccer as Americans would call it, but let me use it as an example. If you support a team like Manchester United, do you support only the 1985 version of it and anyone who comes in after that, as a result of CHANGE, you call them replacements? Think about that for a second. In principle, it's the same thing.

Well, the sports analogy kind of fits the situation but in other ways it is way off the mark.  Bands don't have up and coming prospects to draft.  The Stones don't have a minor league replacement for Mick or Keith.  Most people don't have a problem watching 60+ year old playing music.  But there would be a major uproar if a 55 year old Regie jackson was still playing baseball for the Yankees.  Also, athletes are not asked to re-create the exact same plays as previous teams, especially under different coaches, but band replacements are asked to mimic the parts of songs done by others

[jarmo]

But the goals are similar. For the sports team is to win the championship, no matter who plays in the team.

A band probably wants to play for their fans and record, no matter who's in the band.


So either you're a fan of the team/band as a whole, or you're a fan of the individual player and/or a specific team/line up.



What it comes down to eventually is this: Did it take you 19 years to realize GN'R's line ups keep changing? What exactly does the complaining achieve? I'm pretty sure that most fans are aware of the fact that GN'R in 2009 isn't the same exact line up as it was in 1987. But the key thing is, the attitude is still the same.





/jarmo

[The Catcher]

And Axl Rose is still centre stage. That's what matters the most to me. If you think Slash and co. has the equal position when it comes to that, try to picture Guns N' Roses without Axl... Oh, that's right, there was this failed experiment called Velvet Revolver...

[Layflats]

Man, you motherfuckers would never make it as Parliment Funkadelic fans.  I wanted to list the "history of the band roster" but it would have taken up too much space.  Yet Funkadelic still tours and kills shows because the SONGS kick ass.

Y'all have to remember in the early days on "The Strip", it was Axl that everyone wanted in their group, he is the lifeforce of Gn'R.  The sooner y'all get used to that fact, the better.

[The Catcher]

Man, you motherfuckers would never make it as Parliment Funkadelic fans.  I wanted to list the "history of the band roster" but it would have taken up too much space.  Yet Funkadelic still tours and kills shows because the SONGS kick ass.

Y'all have to remember in the early days on "The Strip", it was Axl that everyone wanted in their group, he is the lifeforce of Gn'R.  The sooner y'all get used to that fact, the better.

Haha, preach it bro.
He's the soul of GN'R and will always be.

[ppbebe]

Well, the sports analogy kind of fits the situation but in other ways it is way off the mark.  Bands don't have up and coming prospects to draft.  The Stones don't have a minor league replacement for Mick or Keith.  Most people don't have a problem watching 60+ year old playing music.  But there would be a major uproar if a 55 year old Regie jackson was still playing baseball for the Yankees.  Also, athletes are not asked to re-create the exact same plays as previous teams, especially under different coaches, but band replacements are asked to mimic the parts of songs done by others

then think it as a family with an addition than a replacement, expansion than a loss... members might change and move on to other place but the contributions are still there in the band. and the impressive performances are in our memories. then a new addition will bring new ideas to the band and new experiences to the fans. GN'R is a music tribe that never stagnates.

anyhoo why I remember seeing his pic at a gnr site is that he had the look a bit like robin in there.

[gilld1]

But the goals are similar. For the sports team is to win the championship, no matter who plays in the team.

A band probably wants to play for their fans and record, no matter who's in the band.


So either you're a fan of the team/band as a whole, or you're a fan of the individual player and/or a specific team/line up.



What it comes down to eventually is this: Did it take you 19 years to realize GN'R's line ups keep changing? What exactly does the complaining achieve? I'm pretty sure that most fans are aware of the fact that GN'R in 2009 isn't the same exact line up as it was in 1987. But the key thing is, the attitude is still the same.





/jarmo

No, it didn't take me 19 years to figure that out.  But to say that the amount of change during the 80s and early 90s even comes close to the massive amount of change since 99 is crazy talk.  It has literally been a revolving door since 99.  I am not one of those people that fear change by any any means, but this amount of change has had what benefit?  This instability has had to of impaired band chemistry and forward progress.

I don't think I'm complaining, just making observations.

How is the attitude the same?  What was once the most dangerous band in the world is what now?  the most dysfunctional??

[GNR4L]

And Axl Rose is still centre stage. That's what matters the most to me. If you think Slash and co. has the equal position when it comes to that, try to picture Guns N' Roses without Axl... Oh, that's right, there was this failed experiment called Velvet Revolver...

I couldn't agree more.  I couldn't even fathom the thought of seeing a Guns N' Roses show without that signature voice of Axl.

[crow316]

Using the sports analogy to justify line-up changes is way off. It turns GnR into a brand name, not a band.  Also, if in a few years, Axl decided to retire, does GnR management hire a replacement to keep the band going?  Or is it only GnR if it consists of anyone as long as its fronted by Axl?

[axl2]

The band as GNR is gone. GNR wasn't some kind of organization it was a band. To me it was holding on by a thread when Izzy left. It died when all the members left. The material on the albums will show it's not the same band, obviously. The music is good in both regimes but the old GNR were a totally different animal, and deserves the respect to be considered the real GNR.

Saying GNR is just Axl is ridiculous. He's arguably the biggest part, but they'll never write material comparable to what the original and real GNR did. Nobody can.

[ppbebe]

read my post.

[The Catcher]

Using the sports analogy to justify line-up changes is way off. It turns GnR into a brand name, not a band.  Also, if in a few years, Axl decided to retire, does GnR management hire a replacement to keep the band going?  Or is it only GnR if it consists of anyone as long as its fronted by Axl?

You are the one that's way off on the sports anology, because I don't like sports and certainly have no interest in seeing Guns N' Roses as a brand name rather than a band, so you've got me all wrong on that one. What I said was that the principle is the same, you support your favourite club or band no matter the changes they make as they go along.

As for the revolving door since '99 comment, Axl has had to build this band alone since the other original members walked out on him, and that has taken a lot of time and try-outs, but as if that wasn't enough then new members have walked out as well. Sad, but the show must go on, and some changes are certainly for the better.

[Layflats]

All right, get this, you all are harping on this thing, but consider what true artists do to draw inspiration.

Axl starts to get interested in "industrial" tones and technique.  He recruits Finck who probably taught him a ton based on his NIN experience.  It translates to a sound Axl was looking for.  In my mind he wanted Finck for the record, the live aspect was icing.

Axl maybe starts looking for a lead guitarist that makes his "other lead guitarist" jealous.  He recruits Buckethead. A few people on Earth can do what this guy does on a guitar.  It results in mind-blowing solos on an album. 

An aside, I find it hilarious that people we're talking about how Ashba might not "look the part" when at one point there stands a fucking guy with a white mask and a KFC bucket on his head.  Oh yeah, plus he breakdances and does a numb chuck solo.

Then he finds songwriting partners...Stinson, Tobias, Pitman, Reed,... most of which are still in the fold.

Another thing, the whole Brain May situation.  You really think Axl just brought him in to hopefully get a solo?  You don't think there were conversations on how Queen approached recording?  I hear more Queen and Thin Lizzy on CD than the ol' Stones/Blusey vibe.

To finish my point, get over the line-up changes, it amounts to dick.

[ppbebe]

Guns n roses is not axl but it basically originated from axl.

[jarmo]

Using the sports analogy to justify line-up changes is way off. It turns GnR into a brand name, not a band.

Look up the definition of the word band. It doesn't specify that the same individuals need to be involved at all times.

It's a band as long as there's a group of people playing music together.


The whole idea that a band ceases to exist as a band because a member is replaced is absurd.

True, it's not the same band, but it's still a band.





/jarmo

[Layflats]

And the reason it's not just Axl is because he believes in the power of collaboration.  It takes more time to write in a group, and when you lose key members, it takes even more time. 

Some are saying the material on CD doesn't somehow measure up to everything else Gn'R has produced, that proves you're deaf.

[Jim Bob]

The band as GNR is gone. GNR wasn't some kind of organization it was a band. To me it was holding on by a thread when Izzy left. It died when all the members left. The material on the albums will show it's not the same band, obviously. The music is good in both regimes but the old GNR were a totally different animal, and deserves the respect to be considered the real GNR.

the old GNR is simply that, the old GNR.   To call it the real GNR is ignoring reality and the present.   Don't be that guy.

Saying GNR is just Axl is ridiculous.

You're right, theres 7 other guys in the band.

He's arguably the biggest part, but they'll never write material comparable to what the original and real GNR did. Nobody can.

Thats a pretty narrow minded way to look at things.  Nobody can?   Nothing is impossible, and IMO many of the songs on CD are some of the best GnR songs ever written.  I'm not the only one with this opinion, so you can take your "facts" and shove it.

you don't by chance sport a mullet... do you?