New Dj interview at LegendaryRockInterviews.com (Sep 2014)

[JAEBALL]

Nobody is disputing anything. The whole thing is about how in some cases the definition of core members varies to whatever fits.

This is often confused to mean as being disrespectful towards the past line ups, which is bullshit. Now the disrespect towards the current band members, some of whom have been there longer than the so called core members, that's another topic altogether....



/jarmo

It's not disrespect....it's indifference...

Tommy can be the "bass player" for 20 more years... like...who cares if it's just to continue playing mostly Duffs parts? I certainly don't disrespect the guy...just indifferent about him. Saw the Replacements play last week...and even tho I wasn't familiar with the songs..awesome show!

[Ginger King]

Nobody is disputing anything. The whole thing is about how in some cases the definition of core members varies to whatever fits.

This is often confused to mean as being disrespectful towards the past line ups, which is bullshit. Now the disrespect towards the current band members, some of whom have been there longer than the so called core members, that's another topic altogether....



/jarmo

It's not disrespect....it's indifference...

Tommy can be the "bass player" for 20 more years... like...who cares if it's just to continue playing mostly Duffs parts? I certainly don't disrespect the guy...just indifferent about him. Saw the Replacements play last week...and even tho I wasn't familiar with the songs..awesome show!

Yes, indifference is a good word for it. 

Back on the DJ interview topic, I heard him on Sirius last night (he was a guest DJ on Octane).  Anyway, I only heard a small portion of it, but he introduced himself as ?DJ Ashba, guitarist for Sixx AM?.   No mention of Guns at all.  Now, maybe he said it earlier, or maybe he?s just pushing the Sixx AM angle because they have a new album and tour to promote (imagine that), but I get the impression that these guys are more invested in their ?side projects? then GnR.  DJ is Sixx AM first, Guns second, Tommy is Replacements first, Guns second, and so on.

If these guys treat being in Guns n Roses like a summer job, it?s not hard to see where the indifference towards them comes from.

[GNR2014]

Nobody is disputing anything. The whole thing is about how in some cases the definition of core members varies to whatever fits.

This is often confused to mean as being disrespectful towards the past line ups, which is bullshit. Now the disrespect towards the current band members, some of whom have been there longer than the so called core members, that's another topic altogether....



/jarmo

It's not disrespect....it's indifference...

Tommy can be the "bass player" for 20 more years... like...who cares if it's just to continue playing mostly Duffs parts? I certainly don't disrespect the guy...just indifferent about him. Saw the Replacements play last week...and even tho I wasn't familiar with the songs..awesome show!

Yes, indifference is a good word for it. 

Back on the DJ interview topic, I heard him on Sirius last night (he was a guest DJ on Octane).  Anyway, I only heard a small portion of it, but he introduced himself as ?DJ Ashba, guitarist for Sixx AM?.   No mention of Guns at all.  Now, maybe he said it earlier, or maybe he?s just pushing the Sixx AM angle because they have a new album and tour to promote (imagine that), but I get the impression that these guys are more invested in their ?side projects? then GnR.  DJ is Sixx AM first, Guns second, Tommy is Replacements first, Guns second, and so on.

If these guys treat being in Guns n Roses like a summer job, it?s not hard to see where the indifference towards them comes from.

Especially if Axl is relying on theses guys to write for him. They're obviously going to save their best material for the creative outlets they cherish most.

[D-GenerationX]

This is not Guns N' Roses.  Never will be.  

Is this your personal opinion as well?

Yeah, pretty much.  The group of guys that went into the HOF are what I would call Guns N' Roses.  Its when they did all their best work.  Its the line-up I would introduce to a new fan.  And I think the history of Guns N' Roses can pretty much stop at 1994 and nothing is really lost.

I know its says Guns N' Roses on the ticket, but that's for business reasons.  Axl would be a fool to give up the name, and Slash and Duff are fools for signing their rights away.

If I am being brutally honest, Axl could replace every single person on that stage other than himself and I'd roll with it.

[D-GenerationX]

This is often confused to mean as being disrespectful towards the past line ups, which is bullshit. Now the disrespect towards the current band members, some of whom have been there longer than the so called core members, that's another topic altogether....

Well, its sort of what you are doing.

By trying to be all inclusive, you are rather disrespecting the classic line-up by attempting to elevate those that came after them to the same level.

You seem more focused on what a calendar says than the bigger picture of who did what, when.  This current band could stay together for 5, 10, even 20 more years.  Does that matter?  I would argue it only matters if, for whatever reason, you can't bring yourself to say the classic line-up is the definitive one, and that will never change.

[jarmo]

This is not Guns N' Roses.  Never will be.  

Is this your personal opinion as well?

Yeah, pretty much.  The group of guys that went into the HOF are what I would call Guns N' Roses.  Its when they did all their best work.  Its the line-up I would introduce to a new fan.  And I think the history of Guns N' Roses can pretty much stop at 1994 and nothing is really lost.

That explains a lot.





/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

This is not Guns N' Roses.  Never will be.  

Is this your personal opinion as well?

Yeah, pretty much.  The group of guys that went into the HOF are what I would call Guns N' Roses.  Its when they did all their best work.  Its the line-up I would introduce to a new fan.  And I think the history of Guns N' Roses can pretty much stop at 1994 and nothing is really lost.

That explains a lot.

It puts me in a select group of folks otherwise known as 99.7% of the planet.  Tough to find a good seat at one of our meetings, I can tell you that.

[GeorgeSteele]

This is not Guns N' Roses.  Never will be.  

Is this your personal opinion as well?

Yeah, pretty much.  The group of guys that went into the HOF are what I would call Guns N' Roses.  Its when they did all their best work.  Its the line-up I would introduce to a new fan.  And I think the history of Guns N' Roses can pretty much stop at 1994 and nothing is really lost.

That explains a lot.

It puts me in a select group of folks otherwise known as 99.7% of the planet.  Tough to find a good seat at one of our meetings, I can tell you that.

From my observations, even though the vast majority of fans prefer the music of the old Guns lineup, most of those people don't necessarily feel that the current lineup is "not Guns N' Roses".  Again, on both sides, you can prefer one without shitting on the other. 

[D-GenerationX]

From my observations, even though the vast majority of fans prefer the music of the old Guns lineup, most of those people don't necessarily feel that the current lineup is "not Guns N' Roses".  Again, on both sides, you can prefer one without shitting on the other. 

I would say both incarnations are not apples to apples, which some seem to imply.

Look, few beat the drum louder for a new album from the current line-up that me.  I'm all about it.  I not only don't participate in fantasyland reunion talk, I openly mock those that do.  I'm not one of those guys that's been throwing darts at my Axl Rose dartboard for 18 years because he's the big mean man that took it all away.

But it is what it is, in terms of public perception.  If people want to try and say the two line-ups are on equal footing, they are free to do so.  Some people will also tell you that no planes flew into the World Trace Center.  They are free to say it, but you don't exactly have to take them super seriously.

[GeorgeSteele]

From my observations, even though the vast majority of fans prefer the music of the old Guns lineup, most of those people don't necessarily feel that the current lineup is "not Guns N' Roses".  Again, on both sides, you can prefer one without shitting on the other. 

I would say both incarnations are not apples to apples, which some seem to imply.

Look, few beat the drum louder for a new album from the current line-up that me.  I'm all about it.  I not only don't participate in fantasyland reunion talk, I openly mock those that do.  I'm not one of those guys that's been throwing darts at my Axl Rose dartboard for 18 years because he's the big mean man that took it all away.

But it is what it is, in terms of public perception.  If people want to try and say the two line-ups are on equal footing, they are free to do so.  Some people will also tell you that no planes flew into the World Trace Center.  They are free to say it, but you don't exactly have to take them super seriously.

Not sure what you mean by 'equal footing' and the WTC analogy.  Do you mean liking the current band more than the classic lineup is the equivalent of being a delusional 9/11 truther?  Same thing for someone who likes the classic lineup better but still digs the current group and doesn't think they're 'not Guns N' Roses'?

[D-GenerationX]

Not sure what you mean by 'equal footing' and the WTC analogy.  Do you mean liking the current band more than the classic lineup is the equivalent of being a delusional 9/11 truther?  Same thing for someone who likes the classic lineup better but still digs the current group and doesn't think they're 'not Guns N' Roses'?

I think its a hearty swim upstream to try and make the argument that the current band is on equal footing in terms of impact and perception.

And when you start hearing comparisons to Izzy leaving versus Bucket leaving, or Tommy Stinson being in the band for longer period of time than Duff McKagan...I don't think that resonates in any real way outside not just online GNR fandom, but this specific board.  Most folks would not see that comparison valid, nor the time served argument as relevant.

As for you last line, that's me.  I like and prefer the classic line-up to the current one, but I can roll with the current one.  What I can't roll with in any sort of argument that things are the same "if you think about it" and other such attempts to church it up.

[jarmo]

Considering you're on a fan site dedicated to Guns N' Roses (not just GN'R 1985-199x), you might be surprised to know this place isn't exactly aimed at those 99.7% of the planet.

It's for Guns N' Roses fans. Many of whom don't have that chip on their shoulder. It's not even remotely surprising that you have that opinion though. It's been apparent for quite some time.





/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Considering you're on a fan site dedicated to Guns N' Roses (not just GN'R 1985-199x), you might be surprised to know this place isn't exactly aimed at those 99.7% of the planet.

It's for Guns N' Roses fans. Many of whom don't have that chip on their shoulder. It's not even remotely surprising that you have that opinion though. It's been apparent for quite some time.

No delusions about this board's mission statement.  Well, other than the fact anything about the old band gets shipped of to some Siberia folder, so I'm not entirely in agreement we celebrate the entire band's history round here.

But its why I made the 9/11 truther comparison.  Amongst a group of fellow travelers, there is no shortage of people telling each other how right they are.  But the world at large looks at them a bit askew, right?  That's where I'd put some of these argument you make that would never pass the smell test away form here.  But so long as this is the only board you go to, I could see where one might think these are real trump cards you are throwing down here.

[jarmo]

Dead Horse is for topics you love to discuss. Considering it's about the past, chances are it's been done to death already.
Don't like it? Too bad.

I guess if it's attention you're after, then I can see the "problem" with it. For the rest of us, it makes sense.




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Yeah, all 10 of us.

[Ali]

IMO, Jarmo's point stands.  You have your definition of "core" member.  Others may have their own.

I have the general consensus of the concept of the topic.  jarmo has his fingers in his ears screaming "la-la-la".

Megadeth has undergone countless changes.  But the same 4 guys did :

Rust In Peace
Countdown To Extinction
Youthanasia
Cryptic Writings

Guess what?...those guys are Megadeth in the eyes of most people.  Those are the songs most people know and when they were at the top.

Now, are there Megadeth fans that have their "I just think its funny that..." or "that's your opinion..." types, just like any band?  Probably.  But so what?

Is the Bruce Dickinson line-up with Iron Maiden considered the real one?  Yep.

And we could go on.

Interesting, I consider United Abominations one of the best Megadeth albums, and Dave Ellefson wasn't on it.  I love the Di'Anno Maiden albums every bit as much as any of the Dickinson albums.  I know others that feel the same.

That's neither here nor there. 

The point is "definitive" lineups or "core" members is debatable.  It's not a matter of absolute fact as you're trying to make it out to be.  It's a matter of opinion.

Some people consider Steven Adler an essential member of the old GN'R because of his drumming style and sound and how it affected the overall sound of the AFD songs even though he didn't write any riffs, lyrics or melodies.  Others don't agree that he was an essential member of the band.

It's a matter of opinion.

Ali

Wait, is this really up for debate???  It seems pretty clear.  The core members of GnR are:  Axl, Slash, Duff, and Izzy.  If there?s any debate, it?s whether Steven qualifies as well.

Can anyone really argue DJ Ashba is a core member of Guns n Roses?  Or Robin, Bumble, Richard or Paul Tobias?  Does anyone say, ?hey, I read an interview in Obscure Rocker Weekly with Frank Ferrer, and I want to learn more about his band??  Ever hear anyone say, ?hey, I was watching my favorite movie, Body of Lies, and heard this song in the credits and had to hear more??  Of course not.

Debating this is really revisionist history to justify the current state of affairs.

Of course it is up for debate. The fact that you acknowledge that the inclusion of Adler as a "core" member shows it's up for debate. There is no right answer or wrong answer.

Ali

There is a wrong answer if Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy aren't core members.  What's debatable is whether anyone else belongs there. 

No, that is only your opinion.  And that only includes the old era of the band, not the new era.  Personally, I would define "core" members based on the AFD-UYI era, and then separately for the Chinese Democracy and beyond era of GN'R.

Ali

[Ali]

I agree with Degeneration X and Jaeball. Ali and Jarmo, I definitely disagree with. I think you can like and appreciate the new version of GNR. Guns will always be remembered for the original lineup since there were so many great songs that came from them. It's not just that. You also felt like they were a gang that you wanted  to be a part of. You had the sense that they were like brothers that had an irreplaceable chemistry. They had  the "Eye of the Tiger" and fought their way. They were underdogs that made it to the top. These just some of the traits that  made Guns so likable!

That cannot be duplicated with the new version. You do get the sense that everyone in this band is replaceable. Until something gets produced and band members actually have a sense as to what's going on, it's going to feel this way.

 As quoted by Axl in the "Spaghetti Incident", "Buy the originals".

That is your opinion, and one you're certainly entitled to.  My only point is that the definition of "core" member of GN'R is entirely subjective.

Ali

[Ali]

Nobody is disputing anything. The whole thing is about how in some cases the definition of core members varies to whatever fits.

This is often confused to mean as being disrespectful towards the past line ups, which is bullshit. Now the disrespect towards the current band members, some of whom have been there longer than the so called core members, that's another topic altogether....



/jarmo

It's not disrespect....it's indifference...

Tommy can be the "bass player" for 20 more years... like...who cares if it's just to continue playing mostly Duffs parts? I certainly don't disrespect the guy...just indifferent about him. Saw the Replacements play last week...and even tho I wasn't familiar with the songs..awesome show!

Yes, indifference is a good word for it. 

Back on the DJ interview topic, I heard him on Sirius last night (he was a guest DJ on Octane).  Anyway, I only heard a small portion of it, but he introduced himself as ?DJ Ashba, guitarist for Sixx AM?.   No mention of Guns at all.  Now, maybe he said it earlier, or maybe he?s just pushing the Sixx AM angle because they have a new album and tour to promote (imagine that), but I get the impression that these guys are more invested in their ?side projects? then GnR.  DJ is Sixx AM first, Guns second, Tommy is Replacements first, Guns second, and so on.

If these guys treat being in Guns n Roses like a summer job, it?s not hard to see where the indifference towards them comes from.

I think this is what is known as confirmation bias.  Rather than consider the fact that Sixx: AM has album being released now as why DJ would promote himself as the guitarist for Sixx: AM, you use that as some sort of evidence that he treats GN'R "like a summer job".

Ali

[Ali]

Nobody is disputing anything. The whole thing is about how in some cases the definition of core members varies to whatever fits.

This is often confused to mean as being disrespectful towards the past line ups, which is bullshit. Now the disrespect towards the current band members, some of whom have been there longer than the so called core members, that's another topic altogether....



/jarmo

It's not disrespect....it's indifference...

Tommy can be the "bass player" for 20 more years... like...who cares if it's just to continue playing mostly Duffs parts? I certainly don't disrespect the guy...just indifferent about him. Saw the Replacements play last week...and even tho I wasn't familiar with the songs..awesome show!

Yes, indifference is a good word for it. 

Back on the DJ interview topic, I heard him on Sirius last night (he was a guest DJ on Octane).  Anyway, I only heard a small portion of it, but he introduced himself as ?DJ Ashba, guitarist for Sixx AM?.   No mention of Guns at all.  Now, maybe he said it earlier, or maybe he?s just pushing the Sixx AM angle because they have a new album and tour to promote (imagine that), but I get the impression that these guys are more invested in their ?side projects? then GnR.  DJ is Sixx AM first, Guns second, Tommy is Replacements first, Guns second, and so on.

If these guys treat being in Guns n Roses like a summer job, it?s not hard to see where the indifference towards them comes from.

Especially if Axl is relying on theses guys to write for him. They're obviously going to save their best material for the creative outlets they cherish most.

There is no evidence at all that DJ or anyone else in the band is saving their "best" material for their other projects.  That makes even less sense to me when the stylistic differences between Sixx: AM, The Replacements, etc. are considered vs. GN'R.  It very well may be that they have certain material that fits one project vs. another.

Ali

[reayj2003]

I got the new Sixx AM cd today. I like Dj's guitar work. Hope he has a hand in some GN'R stuff soon.