New Dj interview at LegendaryRockInterviews.com (Sep 2014)

[Ali]

I agree with what you said is the real question, and but I think a better question is, "do you like Guns N' Roses as it is now?".  That, and that alone, is the subjective part.  I disagree that it is the same as, "Is the Guns N' Roses?"

Who outside this board hears that out?

Do you think if you broke it down for someone out there in the world just as you have here, they accept that and see the error of their ways?

I have broken it down for many people outside this board.  I won't say that they've necessarily seen the error of their ways, so much as they've accepted and agreed with what I'm saying.  They have conceded in one way or another that what they're really saying when they say "this isn't Guns N' Roses" is some variation of "I don't like this" for whatever underlying reason or reasons.

Ali

[D-GenerationX]

I agree with what you said is the real question, and but I think a better question is, "do you like Guns N' Roses as it is now?".  That, and that alone, is the subjective part.  I disagree that it is the same as, "Is the Guns N' Roses?"

Who outside this board hears that out?

Do you think if you broke it down for someone out there in the world just as you have here, they accept that and see the error of their ways?

I have broken it down for many people outside this board.  I won't say that they've necessarily seen the error of their ways, so much as they've accepted and agreed with what I'm saying.  They have conceded in one way or another that what they're really saying when they say "this isn't Guns N' Roses" is some variation of "I don't like this" for whatever underlying reason or reasons.

Ali

That would have been my guess.  That they would say that technically you have a point, but that point has no relevance to them.

And I, personally, at that point would question the efficacy of that argument.  You are "right", but what's it getting you?

[jarmo]

Comparing the UYI lineup to today?s lineup is illogical.

I didn't compare, you silly. Read what I responded to, it was a hypothetical scenario where Robin is on the record and Dj plays the songs live.
I just pointed out this already happened with GN'R and don't see it being an issue.

Izzy and Steven being replace by Gilby and Matt is not the same as Slash, Duff, Gilby, Matt, Robin, Bucket, Brain, Josh, and Paul being replaced by Richard, Bumble, DJ, Tommy, Frank and Chris.

Funny how you lump everybody together once it suits your needs. On other occasions you're quick to point out this is not GN'R.  
Can't believe I saw you put all those guys from the "classic" line up together with the guys from latter line ups.  


Slash -> Robin -> Dj
Buckethead -> Bumblefoot
Duff -> Tommy
Izzy -> Gilby -> Paul -> Richard
Steven -> Matt -> Josh -> Brain -> Frank
Chris = Chris
Dizzy = Dizzy

There, it's easier to grasp for you that this is what sometimes happens in bands.



/jarmo

[Ali]

I agree with what you said is the real question, and but I think a better question is, "do you like Guns N' Roses as it is now?".  That, and that alone, is the subjective part.  I disagree that it is the same as, "Is the Guns N' Roses?"

Who outside this board hears that out?

Do you think if you broke it down for someone out there in the world just as you have here, they accept that and see the error of their ways?

I have broken it down for many people outside this board.  I won't say that they've necessarily seen the error of their ways, so much as they've accepted and agreed with what I'm saying.  They have conceded in one way or another that what they're really saying when they say "this isn't Guns N' Roses" is some variation of "I don't like this" for whatever underlying reason or reasons.

Ali

That would have been my guess.  That they would say that technically you have a point, but that point has no relevance to them.

And I, personally, at that point would question the efficacy of that argument.  You are "right", but what's it getting you?

It's not about changing the underlying opinion of whether or not they like GN'R today.  It's about looking at things through the correct vantage point.

Why question the efficacy of the argument then?

After all, I've heard complaints about this not being Guns N' Roses since at least the release of "Oh My God" when evidence of a new GN'R lineup became public.  That was fifteen years, and many, many expressions of this not being Guns N' Roses ago.  Nothing has changed in that fifteen plus years.  In fact, I just received a Guns N' Roses release yesterday in the mail.  Neither I, nor any other supporter of the band now, was the one who decided what name that release would be under, either. So, I don't see anything to say what the band name is subjective as far as we, the public, is concerned.  The only one who gets to decide that is Axl Rose.

What's it getting me?  The reality of the situation.  What's arguing that this isn't Guns N' Roses getting anyone?  Clearly not a change in the band name to something else.

Ali

[D-GenerationX]

Why question the efficacy of the argument then?

The point was made earlier today about OJ Simpson and his wife Nicole.

Legally, technically, "hey, I'm just saying"...however you want to preface it, O.J. Simpson is not guilty of killing Nicole Brown Simpson.  It's right there court documents.

But, let's be real here.  Who the hell really believes that?  Can you puff out your chest and wave the verdict in your hand as you do it?  Sure can.  Does it elicit anything but laughter though?

(just as a disclaimer, yes, I recognize that murder of a human being and a pissing contest over a rock band name aren't exactly equal situations)

[Ali]

Why question the efficacy of the argument then?

The point was made earlier today about OJ Simpson and his wife Nicole.

Legally, technically, "hey, I'm just saying"...however you want to preface it, O.J. Simpson is not guilty of killing Nicole Brown Simpson.  It's right there court documents.

But, let's be real here.  Who the hell really believes that?  Can you puff out your chest and wave the verdict in your hand as you do it?  Sure can.  Does it elicit anything but laughter though?

(just as a disclaimer, yes, I recognize that murder of a human being and a pissing contest over a rock band name aren't exactly equal situations)

I wasn't expecting an OJ reference, but, hey, I'll go with it 

Saying someone is not guilty is not the same as saying "innocent".

The distinction lies in whether or not criminal court process accurately served truth and justice.

Nothing I said in my previous post about receiving a Guns N' Roses release yesterday, despite more than a decade of cries that the band isn't Guns N' Roses, or whether or not the band is Guns N' Roses not being a subjective argument beyond Axl Rose, is untrue.

Ali

[14 Yrs Of Silence]

Wow, talk about falling back on a dead horse.  Has it really come back to debating whether this is Guns N' Roses?  Obviously technically its GN'R.  Thats not debatable.  But if you look at it from the perspective that GN'R was made up of a certain group of musicans, a musical style or even a certain spirit/vibe that the original Guns had, than clearly one could equate GN'R with something that was, but will never be again.  It is subjective to each individual how they feel the lineup changes, musical style changes and just plain old growning up impacts what they think is GN'R.  Even Axl refers to "old guns" and "new guns", so of course there are distinct eras.  So, is it GN'R, yes.  Is it the same as it once was, no of course not.  But a thread runs through it all, and thats Axl, he owns the name, and he continues to play the classic material, so in all fairness its Guns N' Roses, just evolved in a number of ways from what that once meant.

[Sosso]

Wow, talk about falling back on a dead horse.  Has it really come back to debating whether this is Guns N' Roses?  Obviously technically its GN'R.  Thats not debatable.  But if you look at it from the perspective that GN'R was made up of a certain group of musicans, a musical style or even a certain spirit/vibe that the original Guns had, than clearly one could equate GN'R with something that was, but will never be again.  It is subjective to each individual how they feel the lineup changes, musical style changes and just plain old growning up impacts what they think is GN'R.  Even Axl refers to "old guns" and "new guns", so of course there are distinct eras.  So, is it GN'R, yes.  Is it the same as it once was, no of course not.  But a thread runs through it all, and thats Axl, he owns the name, and he continues to play the classic material, so in all fairness its Guns N' Roses, just evolved in a number of ways from what that once meant.

He is not using the term "new gnr". He says current line-up.

[HBK]

Comparing the UYI lineup to today?s lineup is illogical.

I didn't compare, you silly. Read what I responded to, it was a hypothetical scenario where Robin is on the record and Dj plays the songs live.
I just pointed out this already happened with GN'R and don't see it being an issue.

Izzy and Steven being replace by Gilby and Matt is not the same as Slash, Duff, Gilby, Matt, Robin, Bucket, Brain, Josh, and Paul being replaced by Richard, Bumble, DJ, Tommy, Frank and Chris.

Funny how you lump everybody together once it suits your needs. On other occasions you're quick to point out this is not GN'R.  
Can't believe I saw you put all those guys from the "classic" line up together with the guys from latter line ups.  


Slash -> Robin -> Dj
Buckethead -> Bumblefoot
Duff -> Tommy
Izzy -> Gilby -> Paul -> Richard
Steven -> Matt -> Josh -> Brain -> Frank
Chris = Chris
Dizzy = Dizzy

There, it's easier to grasp for you that this is what sometimes happens in bands.



/jarmo

Dave Navarro, Lars, Sebastian,,,

 

[14 Yrs Of Silence]

Wow, talk about falling back on a dead horse.  Has it really come back to debating whether this is Guns N' Roses?  Obviously technically its GN'R.  Thats not debatable.  But if you look at it from the perspective that GN'R was made up of a certain group of musicans, a musical style or even a certain spirit/vibe that the original Guns had, than clearly one could equate GN'R with something that was, but will never be again.  It is subjective to each individual how they feel the lineup changes, musical style changes and just plain old growning up impacts what they think is GN'R.  Even Axl refers to "old guns" and "new guns", so of course there are distinct eras.  So, is it GN'R, yes.  Is it the same as it once was, no of course not.  But a thread runs through it all, and thats Axl, he owns the name, and he continues to play the classic material, so in all fairness its Guns N' Roses, just evolved in a number of ways from what that once meant.

He is not using the term "new gnr". He says current line-up.

Perhaps you're right there, but he definitely refers to the Appetite/UYI lineups as "Old Guns" in the Revolver interview.

[Sosso]

Wow, talk about falling back on a dead horse.  Has it really come back to debating whether this is Guns N' Roses?  Obviously technically its GN'R.  Thats not debatable.  But if you look at it from the perspective that GN'R was made up of a certain group of musicans, a musical style or even a certain spirit/vibe that the original Guns had, than clearly one could equate GN'R with something that was, but will never be again.  It is subjective to each individual how they feel the lineup changes, musical style changes and just plain old growning up impacts what they think is GN'R.  Even Axl refers to "old guns" and "new guns", so of course there are distinct eras.  So, is it GN'R, yes.  Is it the same as it once was, no of course not.  But a thread runs through it all, and thats Axl, he owns the name, and he continues to play the classic material, so in all fairness its Guns N' Roses, just evolved in a number of ways from what that once meant.

He is not using the term "new gnr". He says current line-up.

Perhaps you're right there, but he definitely refers to the Appetite/UYI lineups as "Old Guns" in the Revolver interview.

Yes, he does. I didn't said something else.

[ice cream sand pig]

So Ginger King, what exactly would make you happy? If the band changed their name? Do you want a reunion?

Some members left. I'm glad Axl kept it going. I would much rather have his rendition of GNR than all the other stuff the previous band members released and some instrumental movie soundtrack type stuff from Axl combined.

You can say they should release material with the more recent lineup on it ASAP, but when you do you just ignore the fact that it really should be up to Axl when he wants to release his stuff. I've heard the whole "fans feeling entitled" thing before but I didn't understand it until Jarmo posted earlier today. Now it makes perfect sense. He replied to your complaints (in reference to a few of the people that were complaining) with a perfectly reasonable argument and went largely ignored.

As for the OJ thing, I happen to be African American and found the sentiment that you think he was guilty despite the fact he was found innocent in a court of law very offensive. Just kidding, that was a reference to an episode of Family Guy.

[Ginger King]

So Ginger King, what exactly would make you happy? If the band changed their name? Do you want a reunion?

Some members left. I'm glad Axl kept it going. I would much rather have his rendition of GNR than all the other stuff the previous band members released and some instrumental movie soundtrack type stuff from Axl combined.

You can say they should release material with the more recent lineup on it ASAP, but when you do you just ignore the fact that it really should be up to Axl when he wants to release his stuff. I've heard the whole "fans feeling entitled" thing before but I didn't understand it until Jarmo posted earlier today. Now it makes perfect sense. He replied to your complaints (in reference to a few of the people that were complaining) with a perfectly reasonable argument and went largely ignored.

As for the OJ thing, I happen to be African American and found the sentiment that you think he was guilty despite the fact he was found innocent in a court of law very offensive. Just kidding, that was a reference to an episode of Family Guy.

It?s really not about what makes me happy (honestly, to crush some beers with Axl) but I?ve come to terms that will never happen. 

I like CD?I?ve gone to multiple shows (both in the US and abroad) of the current lineup.  Had a great time at every show.  But it?s really Gun n Roses in name only.  And I know that?s hard for many people here to accept, but that?s just my feeling.  Doesn?t make me like Axl any less, I still think he?s the greatest frontman of all-time.  Doesn't make me get angry at people who disagree, it's just simply my opinion.

I?d prefer if the current lineup didn?t have so many side projects?it seems that they are (or at least some of them are) more excited about their side projects than GnR (and maybe, to them, GnR is their side project).  I think it?s odd that a band that?s played 200+ shows around the world can?t find any time to record one song. 

It seems too convenient to fall back on ?Axl?s an artist and artists shouldn?t feel rushed to or have to compromise their vision for anything.?  Maybe there?s some validity to that when you?re talking about creating songs, but that argument doesn?t hold true to the songs that are already done?because they?re already done. 

I do think that a band needs to release music to be a band?and I don?t think I?m crazy for holding that opinion.  It?s not about being an entitled fan.  I?m not owed anything.  It?s just a belief that for a band to be considered a legit band, they need to play their own music.  Otherwise, they?re a touring act (which is fine, but don?t give the impression that you?re something else).

I also find it funny that, on here, myself (and some others) are looked at as not real fans.  I?m the only guy (no exaggeration) in my group of friends when we get together to play cards that says, ?hey, let?s throw on Better or TWAT.? 

Sorry for the rambling?I appreciate the Family Guy reference, btw.

[HBK]

So Ginger King, what exactly would make you happy? If the band changed their name? Do you want a reunion?

Some members left. I'm glad Axl kept it going. I would much rather have his rendition of GNR than all the other stuff the previous band members released and some instrumental movie soundtrack type stuff from Axl combined.

You can say they should release material with the more recent lineup on it ASAP, but when you do you just ignore the fact that it really should be up to Axl when he wants to release his stuff. I've heard the whole "fans feeling entitled" thing before but I didn't understand it until Jarmo posted earlier today. Now it makes perfect sense. He replied to your complaints (in reference to a few of the people that were complaining) with a perfectly reasonable argument and went largely ignored.

As for the OJ thing, I happen to be African American and found the sentiment that you think he was guilty despite the fact he was found innocent in a court of law very offensive. Just kidding, that was a reference to an episode of Family Guy.

It?s really not about what makes me happy (honestly, to crush some beers with Axl) but I?ve come to terms that will never happen. 

I like CD?I?ve gone to multiple shows (both in the US and abroad) of the current lineup.  Had a great time at every show.  But it?s really Gun n Roses in name only.  And I know that?s hard for many people here to accept, but that?s just my feeling.  Doesn?t make me like Axl any less, I still think he?s the greatest frontman of all-time.  Doesn't make me get angry at people who disagree, it's just simply my opinion.

I?d prefer if the current lineup didn?t have so many side projects?it seems that they are (or at least some of them are) more excited about their side projects than GnR (and maybe, to them, GnR is their side project).  I think it?s odd that a band that?s played 200+ shows around the world can?t find any time to record one song. 

It seems too convenient to fall back on ?Axl?s an artist and artists shouldn?t feel rushed to or have to compromise their vision for anything.?  Maybe there?s some validity to that when you?re talking about creating songs, but that argument doesn?t hold true to the songs that are already done?because they?re already done. 

I do think that a band needs to release music to be a band?and I don?t think I?m crazy for holding that opinion.  It?s not about being an entitled fan.  I?m not owed anything.  It?s just a belief that for a band to be considered a legit band, they need to play their own music.  Otherwise, they?re a touring act (which is fine, but don?t give the impression that you?re something else).

I also find it funny that, on here, myself (and some others) are looked at as not real fans.  I?m the only guy (no exaggeration) in my group of friends when we get together to play cards that says, ?hey, let?s throw on Better or TWAT.? 

Sorry for the rambling?I appreciate the Family Guy reference, btw.

Metallica, Alice Cooper, Ozzy, Journey, Etc, Blah, Yuhhuuuuu !!!

Cheers

 

[GeorgeSteele]

But it?s really Gun n Roses in name only. 

Only?  That's the name of the band.  What else is it supposed to be? 

I think Ali said it best earlier today, people just use the "this isn't GNR" line as synonymous with the sentiment that this lineup doesn't rate with earlier versions of the band.  That's a matter of opinion, but the name of the band is not. 

[Ginger King]

But it?s really Gun n Roses in name only. 

Only?  That's the name of the band.  What else is it supposed to be? 

I think Ali said it best earlier today, people just use the "this isn't GNR" line as synonymous with the sentiment that this lineup doesn't rate with earlier versions of the band.  That's a matter of opinion, but the name of the band is not. 

What has this lineup done to carry the GnR torch forward?  They play shows with an ever increasing amount of songs from the classic lineup than from the "nuGnR" lineup.  They are relying more on the past, instead of looking at the future.

That's what I mean when I say in name only.  They are all (except Axl, obviously) replaceable widgets, and that's not exactly the warm and fuzzy feeling you want from a band.

[D-GenerationX]

Ron Thal is perhaps going to leave this band after 8 years without working on one song.

The next guy can be slotted right in and not miss a beat.  Because he won't be on any songs either.

But, hey...Izzy left a tour that time, so....yeah. 

[Sosso]

Ron Thal is perhaps going to leave this band after 8 years without working on one song.

The next guy can be slotted right in and not miss a beat.  Because he won't be on any songs either.

But, hey...Izzy left a tour that time, so....yeah. 

You are always saying that he is leaving the band but you don't have any proof for it.

[GeorgeSteele]

But it?s really Gun n Roses in name only. 

Only?  That's the name of the band.  What else is it supposed to be? 

I think Ali said it best earlier today, people just use the "this isn't GNR" line as synonymous with the sentiment that this lineup doesn't rate with earlier versions of the band.  That's a matter of opinion, but the name of the band is not. 

What has this lineup done to carry the GnR torch forward?  They play shows with an ever increasing amount of songs from the classic lineup than from the "nuGnR" lineup.  They are relying more on the past, instead of looking at the future.

That's what I mean when I say in name only.  They are all (except Axl, obviously) replaceable widgets, and that's not exactly the warm and fuzzy feeling you want from a band.

Again, that's just an opinion that the current lineup doesn't measure up.  So when someone says "name only", whatever else there is besides the name (in your opinion, the torch and irreplaceable parts) is a matter of opinion.

Also, I disagree about the band members being "replaceable widgets".  A quick look at the band's history shows that it was anything other than a case of hitting the ground running when a member left.  Most member departures hit the band pretty hard, so that would suggest they were not so easily replaceable.  

[JAEBALL]

Jaeball, I think Axl works hard to hold the material up to GNR standards. He could have easily gone his own way and done solo records. He said something about how they would basically be epic instrumental albums if he would have done that. That's not what were getting here. I think certain songs on CD nailed the GNR sound. You mention we should be objective about things but objectively speaking, this band is GNR. That is a courtroom fact. You could say it's only a technicality but technically speaking, objectively speaking, it's GNR. I also think in terms of the GNR standard of workmanship it is GNR. Axl is doing his best to keep the band alive. I really thank him for that. I don't want epic instrumental albums. I want more GNR.

In regards to Jarmo's post above, I think it's a good point that you shouldn't expect the whole operation to be shut down just because certain individuals decide they want out. I also don't think that just because that happens the band should be forced to rush out a new release.

I feel like Jarmo made some excellent points a few posts back and they are just being ignored because it is convenient to ignore them.

If I don't answer immediately ... It's not because I'm avoiding a question ... I don't spend 24/7 reading the board ...

Comparing Gilby filling in for Izzy .. I really don't see the comparison in any way ...

But No I didn't want the tour to stop ... And the band was doomed once he walked away