New Dj interview at LegendaryRockInterviews.com (Sep 2014)

[D-GenerationX]

There are really only 3 threads going at this board right now.  And by the time you hit page 51 in one of them, there is going to be some meandering. 

But so long as there is give and take and decent conversation, where's the harm?  The alternative is to sit here in silence.

[ice cream sand pig]

As for Robin and Bucket leaving the band, it is unfortunate but I think their replacements are doing a damn good job. And while you're free to expect the band to just rush out a release for the sake of having some material that they have written in the rotation, I don't think those expectations are too realistic considering the standard of workmanship that Axl thankfully binds his material to. But it looks like some things may change soon. I have a feeling that the next release will feature Ron and DJ more than many of us seem to hypothesize, and I think that release will come sooner than some of us might think. It's just a hunch but what can I say, I'm a glass half full kind of guy when it comes to my favorite band. I base my theory about Ron and DJ having a strong presence on the album based on the amount of time they have had to contribute to the material this time around (especially Ron) and my theory on the CD release being sooner than later on Axl and a few other band member's recent comments.

[D-GenerationX]

As for Robin and Bucket leaving the band, it is unfortunate but I think their replacements are doing a damn good job.

But what is that based on though?  Some concert bootlegs where you heard them play 'Sweet Child O' Mine' and 'Better'?  Is that a representation of what they can do as a band?

Suppose Eddie Vedder had a falling out with the other fellas in his band.  So he grabs up 5 other dudes and hits the road.  Is that Pearl Jam because the ticket says it is?  Or is that a touring band playing Pearl Jam songs?  How do you know if they can carry on the Pearl Jam legacy until you hear their stuff, and not just them playing 'Even Flow' at a concert?

In essence, we follow a theoretical band.  We have no idea what an Axl-DJ-Ron-Richard-Tommy-Dizzy-Frank band is capable of.  All we know is that they do a decent job playing Axl-Slash-Izzy-Duff stuff as well as Axl-Robin-Bucket-Paul-Tommy stuff.

Until those fellas commit something to record and present to us, they are basically a cover band.  I know that's not a popular argument.  But answer me this.  If Ron winds up leaving, Axl will just stick someone else in the role, yes?  If DJ decided to leave, he would stick someone else in there, right?  That's a cover band mindset, is it not?

Its popular to say that calls for a new album are just the whines of entitled fans that think they are owed something or other.  Not so.  Its asking for something so we can judge who the hell we claim to be following as a real band.  Maybe it would be great.  Maybe it would be terrible.  We don't know.  What we know is that the current line-up plays a bunch of stuff live they did not create.  Its hard to judge them on their merits when we are never given any merits to judge them on.

[Sosso]

I would love to hear new material from the new line-up but at the same time I wanna hear the second part of Chinese Democracy.

[D-GenerationX]

I would love to hear new material from the new line-up but at the same time I wanna hear the second part of Chinese Democracy.

I would rather they clear that deck ASAP to allow the current guys a chance to show what they can do.

But, in the real world, we are probably a year away (at best) from clearing that deck with a release of the rest of the CD stuff.  Assuming that a tour follows, that puts an album from the current guys at least 5-6 years away, if not longer.

Will Guns N' Roses even be a thing by 2020 or 2021?  Hard to forecast.

[14 Yrs Of Silence]

Think we can change the name of the thread to the Kitchen Sink?

[D-GenerationX]

Think we can change the name of the thread to the Kitchen Sink?

That or "Gotta Talk About Something".

[Ali]

All the promotion in the world wasn?t going to make fans of SCOM, November Rain etc enjoy songs like Riad N? The Bedouins.
I?m happy for anyone that can appreciate the music on Chinese Democracy, but is it really difficult to see how it might not appeal to fans of old Guns?

The point is that, name aside, the band that recorded Chinese has next to nothing to do with the band that created AFD, Lies & UYI, so it should come as no surprise that there isn?t much crossover between their respective fan bases.

Agreed.  Its Guns N' Roses in name only.  Which is what it is, and made total business sense.

But its pretty silly to expect people that liked the classic band and sound to be automatically onboard with this radically different line-up and sound, simply because it has a familiar name on the cover.

I see people that get real, real defiant about how "this band IS Guns N' Roses"  No. No, its not.  I often get the impression that's something people feel they have to say to be supportive.  Though who is keeping score of all that, I was never clear. 

It's not about being "supportive".  It's about the reality of what is subjective and what isn't.  The band I saw in Vegas this summer IS Guns N' Roses.  There is no debate about that.  You can choose to dislike it or not, but whether or not it is Guns N' Roses just isn't a matter of opinion.

Ali

[Ali]

Whether or not it is 'Guns N' Roses' or not is entirely subjective. It is all to do with whether or not, in your eyes, Axl is enough of a legitimising persona to carry the name. I suppose if he was your favourite member 1985-93, your favourite songs being Estranged and November Rain, you probably have less problems with it than you would if your favourite member was Slash and you preferred the rockers.

A question to those who are adamant that, this is GN'R, because it is, legally, GN'R (and the name is on Chinese Democracy and the concert tickets): would you be so zealous if Slash and Duff had claimed the name and decided to continue (with Matt and Gilby) with a new singer? It would be hypocritical not to defend Slash and Duff's legitimacy unless you accept my first argument, that basically it is entirely subjective.

No, it isn't subjective.  This IS Guns N' Roses whether or not any individual or group of people accept it.  What is subjective is whether or not you choose to like and/or support Guns N' Roses now.

If Slash and Duff owned the name Guns N' Roses and decided to call VR "Guns N' Roses", that also would not be subjective.  It would be Guns N' Roses.  Whether or not you liked it would be subjective however.

Ali

[Sosso]

Well their were actually two versions from LA Guns at the same time. Why not the same with GN'R?

[D-GenerationX]

No, it isn't subjective.  This IS Guns N' Roses whether or not any individual or group of people accept it.  What is subjective is whether or not you choose to like and/or support Guns N' Roses now.

Interesting spin.

But, I'd counter with the fact they are playing very, very small places and to fractions of crowds they did once upon a time.  So either people don't consider these guys Guns N' Roses, or their at one time massive fanbase were all abducted by aliens.

I always feel these conversation eventually wind up with having to clarify that we all agree we are in the pretty extreme minority, in terms of still being able to roll with all this.  We aren't denying that, are we?  If people don't want to join us in that, so be it.  I still put 'There Was A Time' in my top 10 GNR songs, whether I'm a voice in the wilderness or not. 

But sometimes, I think we need to sort of reaffirm our overall standing in the grand scheme.

[D-GenerationX]

Well their were actually two versions from LA Guns at the same time. Why not the same with GN'R?

Well, with all due respect, who ever really cared about LA Guns?

This was one of the biggest rock bands of our lifetime.  Its all exponential.

[Ali]

No, it isn't subjective.  This IS Guns N' Roses whether or not any individual or group of people accept it.  What is subjective is whether or not you choose to like and/or support Guns N' Roses now.

Interesting spin.

But, I'd counter with the fact they are playing very, very small places and to fractions of crowds they did once upon a time.  So either people don't consider these guys Guns N' Roses, or their at one time massive fanbase were all abducted by aliens.

I always feel these conversation eventually wind up with having to clarify that we all agree we are in the pretty extreme minority, in terms of still being able to roll with all this.  We aren't denying that, are we?  If people don't want to join us in that, so be it.  I still put 'There Was A Time' in my top 10 GNR songs, whether I'm a voice in the wilderness or not. 

But sometimes, I think we need to sort of reaffirm our overall standing in the grand scheme.

It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else thinks.  This is Guns N' Roses.  Whether or not you or I or anyone else choose to accept that or like that, is a different matter.  I've heard and read countless statements about how "this isn't Guns N' Roses" for more than a decade.  That didn't change the fact that the concerts I saw this year were Guns N' Roses concerts and the deluxe edition of Appetite for Democracy I just got in the mail today is a Guns N' Roses release.

If who or what is and isn't Guns N' Roses were a subjective matter, then what I described above may have ended up differently.

What is and is not Guns N' Roses is not a subjective matter.  Whether or not that is liked or accepted by any given person is subjective.

That's not spin.  That is just the truth.

IMO, the key here is to make the distinction between what is and is not subjective.  Liking something, is always subjective, of course.

Ali

[Ali]

Well their were actually two versions from LA Guns at the same time. Why not the same with GN'R?

Why not?

Axl has sole, indisputable claim to ownership of the GN'R name.

It's that simple.

Ali

[D-GenerationX]

So Ali, where are we on clarifying we are in the extreme minority.  Agreed?

[Ali]

So Ali, where are we on clarifying we are in the extreme minority.  Agreed?

Minority as to what exactly?  Can you clarify?

Ali

[D-GenerationX]

So Ali, where are we on clarifying we are in the extreme minority.  Agreed?

Minority as to what exactly?  Can you clarify?

Ali

I always feel these conversation eventually wind up with having to clarify that we all agree we are in the pretty extreme minority, in terms of still being able to roll with all this.  We aren't denying that, are we?  If people don't want to join us in that, so be it.  I still put 'There Was A Time' in my top 10 GNR songs, whether I'm a voice in the wilderness or not. 

But sometimes, I think we need to sort of reaffirm our overall standing in the grand scheme.

[draguns]

Well their were actually two versions from LA Guns at the same time. Why not the same with GN'R?

Why not?

Axl has sole, indisputable claim to ownership of the GN'R name.

It's that simple.

Ali

Ali, it isn't that simple considering what went on in the band. I disagree. It is subjective.

[mortismurphy]

Ali, it is not that simple. De jure, you are correct. Legalistically, in terms of copyright law and marketing, this is 'Guns N' Roses' (although it is interesting that Axl had to dissolve the old band in order to form a new one with the same name - but that is a separate argument). Fans however are not fans because of litigation. Their love of a musician and music is usually a subjective experience, comprising of a series of factors, one being, band personal.

[Ginger King]

Well their were actually two versions from LA Guns at the same time. Why not the same with GN'R?

Why not?

Axl has sole, indisputable claim to ownership of the GN'R name.

It's that simple.

Ali

It?s a bit too simplistic to say ?well the name?s on the ticket so it is Guns and Roses.?  Yes, we all know they have the legal right to the name.

The real question then, is whether you accept this as being Guns n Roses (essentially that?s the same as ?is this Guns n Roses? but whatever).  The answer isn?t simple.  The current entity that is Guns n Roses is a shell of its former self.  They are not relevant, musically speaking, and, despite playing 200+ shows around the world, have yet to write/record/release one song.  To me, that?s not really carrying the torch of Guns n Roses.