Goodbye Ron (???)

[JAEBALL]

Yes, it's a touring band. They toured the world! It's a fact, they really did. If you wanna give them credit for it by labeling them a touring band, go ahead. The keyword is, band.

What is this touring band nonsense anyway? Yeah, bands tour. Sometimes members who tour with bands leave. sometimes they record. Sometimes bands split up. Sometimes members leave during a tour.

There's absolutely no guarantee that the band in any era would've stayed together longer even if your idea of the perfect execution of events had happened. It's life.
For example, Brain had a child and stopped touring. What's the band supposed to do?



/jarmo

I get that... especially in Brain's case. But it most certainly is a different band on stage than the one who made the last album and the one who made the next album.

You can define that any way you want I guess...

And you just proved my point that people don't like the touring band label .. so thank you ! lol

When the touring band comes around next time... I will be there again ! (just to be clear for the eventual post declaring that us naysayers about the set list don't go to the shows)

[JAEBALL]

You know what is funny actually.... these endless fun debates would cease to exist if people came out and said.......


I don't care who is in the band, who plays on the record or whats it called and how many albums there are ... if Axl gets up there and sings Jungle and Brownstone.... then i love it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and truth be told... that's how i feel about the whole thing...

But some of you feel like thats not enough... that you have to defend every decision ever made to the death.

[jarmo]

And you just proved my point that people don't like the touring band label .. so thank you ! lol

I just don't get that. Bands tour all the time. Is GN'R a studio band if they're recording?

Maybe there's a secret formula to what makes a real band. I know there must be. And i know it probably exists in your heads. "Real bands release albums". So I guess that makes One Direction a real band.


But, if you were expecting the Chinese Democracy band to play live, I'm sorry. Don't you think your expectations were a bit unrealistic considering the amount of people who were invoked in the making of it? You were really expecting Buckethead, Bumblefoot, Richard, Paul and Robin all on stage playing guitars?




/jarmo

[JAEBALL]

And you just proved my point that people don't like the touring band label .. so thank you ! lol

I just don't get that. Bands tour all the time. Is GN'R a studio band if they're recording?

Maybe there's a secret formula to what makes a real band. I know there must be. And i know it probably exists in your heads. "Real bands release albums". So I guess that makes One Direction a real band.


But, if you were expecting the Chinese Democracy band to play live, I'm sorry. Don't you think your expectations were a bit unrealistic considering the amount of people who were invoked in the making of it? You were really expecting Buckethead, Bumblefoot, Richard, Paul and Robin all on stage playing guitars?




/jarmo

Expect? No... but a live band consisting of at least Bucket and Robin would be ideal no?

I get it... life.. gets in the way.

[Ja5oN]

But the band with Bucket and Robin did exist and did tour.  I saw them.  Then time moved on as it does.

Under that logic Welcome to the Jungle shouldn't be played without the original members?
Yes I am being extreme, but that is where that argument leads.

Bands change sometimes. Everyone has to deal with it.

[D-GenerationX]

I don't care who is in the band, who plays on the record or whats it called and how many albums there are ... if Axl gets up there and sings Jungle and Brownstone.... then i love it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and truth be told... that's how i feel about the whole thing...

Same here.  He could replace every single person on stag with him and I'd roll with it.  I have no connection to any of these guys.

[jarmo]

Ideal? I don't know. I do remember how those two guys weren't exactly universally accepted either.
I think once they were gone, people started missing them. While they were in the band, it was ok to ridicule them and the band.

Those of us who enjoyed it while it lasted, are often them same ones you guys label as zealots.




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

But the band with Bucket and Robin did exist and did tour.  I saw them.  Then time moved on as it does.

Under that logic Welcome to the Jungle shouldn't be played without the original members?
Yes I am being extreme, but that is where that argument leads.

Bands change sometimes. Everyone has to deal with it.

But when people say they are "just a touring band" its to draw a distinction.

37.5% of the guys actually onstage the past few years had very little to with the material they play.  They are just a live band for Axl to sing GNR songs.

Look at this very thread's topic, replacing Ron.  Its not really any skin off anyone's nose, because...what changes?  Not too much.  A new guy takes his slot in the live show to play the same songs.  He will have no more to do with their creation than Ron did.

[D-GenerationX]

Ideal? I don't know. I do remember how those two guys weren't exactly universally accepted either.
I think once they were gone, people started missing them. While they were in the band, it was ok to ridicule them and the band.

Those of us who enjoyed it while it lasted, are often them same ones you guys label as zealots.

I found opinion on Buckethead totally changed once the album came out.

All people had before that were a few live bootlegs.  And a picture of a guy in a mask and a KFC bucket on his head that did not talk.

But once you heard him on the album, people got onboard.  Of course...he's been gone for 6 years by then.

[jarmo]

The opinion on Paul Tobias should've changed as well.

That's the problem, people are so focused on what's wrong in their opinion instead of actually enjoying what they have.

Same shit, different year.



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

The opinion on Paul Tobias should've changed as well.

Agreed.

I considered him nothing but an Axl sycophant that in no way was worth breaking up the old band over.

I still sort of maintain my feeling on the latter, but in terms of the former, you can't argue he was not a huge part of the creation of the new material.

[jarmo]

I think he was used as a scapegoat to explain the split. It's always easier to point fingers and say "it's that guy's fault!" instead of saying "ok, maybe it wasn't a great idea to tell the singer to sing those Snakepit songs and make that the GN'R album"...



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

I think he was used as a scapegoat to explain the split. It's always easier to point fingers and say "it's that guy's fault!" instead of saying "ok, maybe it wasn't a great idea to tell the singer to sing those Snakepit songs and make that the GN'R album"...

When every other single member of the existing band says they don't want him, its equal parts arrogant and short sighted to dig in and insist he's staying.

Axl will die on just about every hill, but this was an especially costly one.

[JAEBALL]

I think he was used as a scapegoat to explain the split. It's always easier to point fingers and say "it's that guy's fault!" instead of saying "ok, maybe it wasn't a great idea to tell the singer to sing those Snakepit songs and make that the GN'R album"...



/jarmo

Nobody with a shred of common sense has ever said it was a good idea to make that the next GNR record...... lol... those songs were awful...

But forcing Paul on the rest of the band / employing the entire band was Axl's biggest mistake of all time. Because IF it's true that he never wanted them to leave which he said... then that was probably the worst way to ever go about it.

It ran it's course. Not Pauls fault, Not Axl's fault, Not Slash's fault.

[jarmo]

You can call it what you want. At least it's productive. Instead of saying "no" and offering no other solution than maybe "let's get Gilby".

I thought you knew how business works. If you say "no", make sure you have a better idea. Then the no will be motivated! Not just no because you can say no.



/jarmo

[JAEBALL]

You can call it what you want. At least it's productive. Instead of saying "no" and offering no other solution than maybe "let's get Gilby".

I thought you knew how business works. If you say "no", make sure you have a better idea. Then the no will be motivated! Not just no because you can say no.



/jarmo

I did have an idea...Izzy   

[Princess Leia]

The opinion on Paul Tobias should've changed as well.

Agreed.

I considered him nothing but an Axl sycophant that in no way was worth breaking up the old band over.

I still sort of maintain my feeling on the latter, but in terms of the former, you can't argue he was not a huge part of the creation of the new material.

Paul Tobias has been label the Yoko Ono of GN?R. The problems begun long before Paul was around. The guy had nothing to do with Adler, Alan Niven and Izzy leaving the band. And he had nothing to do with Slash and Duff signing papers giving Axl full control.

Axl can tour all he wants and with whoever he wants. The problem is he is calling his band GN?R. I don?t need the name GN?R to buy an album or tickets to see Axl. I have seen Slash and Duff performing with other people and not under the name GN?R. I would do the same when it comes to Axl. I don?t know why he feels he must carry the name. I think the name Axl Rose all by itself is big enough. Just look at Ozzy Osbourne. He did great as a solo artist.

[jarmo]

Maybe because it was a name he came up with....




/jarmo

[EmilyGNR]

The opinion on Paul Tobias should've changed as well.

Agreed.

I considered him nothing but an Axl sycophant that in no way was worth breaking up the old band over.

I still sort of maintain my feeling on the latter, but in terms of the former, you can't argue he was not a huge part of the creation of the new material.

Paul Tobias has been label the Yoko Ono of GN?R. The problems begun long before Paul was around. The guy had nothing to do with Adler, Alan Niven and Izzy leaving the band. And he had nothing to do with Slash and Duff signing papers giving Axl full control.

Axl can tour all he wants and with whoever he wants. The problem is he is calling his band GN?R. I don?t need the name GN?R to buy an album or tickets to see Axl. I have seen Slash and Duff performing with other people and not under the name GN?R. I would do the same when it comes to Axl. I don?t know why he feels he must carry the name. I think the name Axl Rose all by itself is big enough. Just look at Ozzy Osbourne. He did great as a solo artist.

He brought the name in with him, why should he not tour under it if he so chooses? Izzy quit and Slash or Steven could have laid claim to "Roadcrew" just anytime, that was theirs.

The "name issue" is one of the most commonly mentioned issues and complaints, and frequently is twisted with the most misconceptions and oft repeated fallacies.

Im personally very thankful that GNR still exists all these many years later.

[Princess Leia]

Maybe because it was a name he came up with....




/jarmo

Yes, but 5 people contributed to make that name relevant to the world not just one. I would say the same thing if Slash or Duff were the ones using the name.