ARTICLE: My thoughts on the future of Guns N' Roses

[Ginger King]

So yes, GNR has lost popularity over the years...but I think it has more to do with not putting out music as opposed to lineup changes.  If they would have put out 5 albums with some good music out over the last 20 years as opposed to 1, they would be much better off.  Of course, there would always be those who lost interest after the band changed, but those are few really.  And with new music, would come new fans.  Most just care about music. 

Totally agree.

You would always have people that cashed out after the others were replaced.  But I also think Axl would be a little better off if had released a few albums with the new line-up by now.

Not putzing around for 15 years on 15 songs.

The lack of output, I think, exacerbates the issue of Axl being the only original member.  In other words, had he consistently (shit, or even occasionally) put out music, people wouldn?t care as much that he?s the last man standing.  But when you?re the last man standing and you infrequently put out music, then there goes the benefit of the doubt.

[Ginger King]

I don't get DX and Jarmos argument? 

I think we all agree that the demand for GnR is less than what it was back in the heyday because?well, because that?s incredibly obvious.  Where people disagree (I think) is the reason for the decrease in interest. 

The reason for the decrease is either (a) consistent with the decrease in demand for other rock bands, (b) the result of Axl being the only original member and only releasing one album in 20+ years, or (c) something else. 

Sounds like Jarmo believes the smaller venues and attendance are because of choice (a), while D-X and others (including me) think it?s both (a) and, to a larger extent, (b).  Guns n Roses is now really only seen as Axl Rose?s band?and while that?s enough to keep some people going, the drop off in interest is, IMO, because it?s only him?and he hasn?t done that much in terms of releasing new music.  When people see Guns now, they see Axl, guitarists they don?t bother learning who they are because, once you do, they?re probably no longer in the band, and a small amount of new material.  People see wasted opportunity?particularly because they know how special Axl is as a performer/writer, and can?t understand how someone with that much talent has only managed to release one album in 20+ years.  After getting sole control of Guns, he hasn?t done much to move the meter, and that?s why the interest is lacking.  Or rock is dead.  That sounds better, especially to the Axl faithful. 

I believe it's a result of both things you mentioned..(a and b), but more so the lack of material to stay relevant and not as much about Axl being the only original member.  Members come and go with SO many bands and I think the music is what's more important.  I think a lot of your comments are views from the die hard fan....or a true rock n roll fan and are a little far fetched.  Seeing only Axl, wasted opportunity, how special Axl was, etc.....I don't believe most see it that way.  And when I say MOST, I'm referring to what I would call an average music listener.  When you look at the grand scheme of things, there are very few people who know what's going on with GNR, and even fewer who care! And it's not just GNR.  The average music listener probably couldn't tell you much about any band for that matter.  I can point to any of my friends and tell you that they don't view GNR like that.  Some of them might know certain people aren't in the band, but they don't care.  I would say that when most people attend a GNR show, they aren't going into it thinking it's only "Axl's band".  I would argue that most people are going in and coming out saying they saw Guns N Roses.  In 20 years from now, if someone says they saw GNR in 2006, the majority of the response will be "cool".  The majority won't be, "but it was only Axl Rose who wasted so much talent and only put out 1 album after 1993."  Those are comments from people on fan sites. 

Think about it.  I went to a Culture Club concert the other night.  Few years back I went to a Little River Band concert.  I have no idea if the original band members are still in the Culture Club besides Boy George.  And I DO know that Little River Band has had more lineup changes than Guns N Roses, and they don't have their lead singer.  But for the most part, neither concert had people talking about anything other than "the songs". 

So yes, GNR has lost popularity over the years...but I think it has more to do with not putting out music as opposed to lineup changes.  If they would have put out 5 albums with some good music out over the last 20 years as opposed to 1, they would be much better off.  Of course, there would always be those who lost interest after the band changed, but those are few really.  And with new music, would come new fans.  Most just care about music. 

Just like the story shared by skydog above.  The guy (probably the average music listener), had no idea Guns N Roses was playing. He bought a ticket, went in, and (I think) enjoyed it.  I doubt he was saying "but this is just Axls band".

With all due respect to Culture Club and Little River Band, even at the height of their respective popularities, they were never even close to GnR?s status.  That?s why the revolving door of musicians isn?t that much of an issue for them.  No one gives a shit if the Cleveland Browns get rid of their quarterback?but if the Patriots cut Brady?then they better succeed with his replacement or else they're going to be subject to a lot of ridicule and second guessing.

[damnthehaters]

I don't get DX and Jarmos argument? 

I think we all agree that the demand for GnR is less than what it was back in the heyday because?well, because that?s incredibly obvious.  Where people disagree (I think) is the reason for the decrease in interest. 

The reason for the decrease is either (a) consistent with the decrease in demand for other rock bands, (b) the result of Axl being the only original member and only releasing one album in 20+ years, or (c) something else. 

Sounds like Jarmo believes the smaller venues and attendance are because of choice (a), while D-X and others (including me) think it?s both (a) and, to a larger extent, (b).  Guns n Roses is now really only seen as Axl Rose?s band?and while that?s enough to keep some people going, the drop off in interest is, IMO, because it?s only him?and he hasn?t done that much in terms of releasing new music.  When people see Guns now, they see Axl, guitarists they don?t bother learning who they are because, once you do, they?re probably no longer in the band, and a small amount of new material.  People see wasted opportunity?particularly because they know how special Axl is as a performer/writer, and can?t understand how someone with that much talent has only managed to release one album in 20+ years.  After getting sole control of Guns, he hasn?t done much to move the meter, and that?s why the interest is lacking.  Or rock is dead.  That sounds better, especially to the Axl faithful. 

I believe it's a result of both things you mentioned..(a and b), but more so the lack of material to stay relevant and not as much about Axl being the only original member.  Members come and go with SO many bands and I think the music is what's more important.  I think a lot of your comments are views from the die hard fan....or a true rock n roll fan and are a little far fetched.  Seeing only Axl, wasted opportunity, how special Axl was, etc.....I don't believe most see it that way.  And when I say MOST, I'm referring to what I would call an average music listener.  When you look at the grand scheme of things, there are very few people who know what's going on with GNR, and even fewer who care! And it's not just GNR.  The average music listener probably couldn't tell you much about any band for that matter.  I can point to any of my friends and tell you that they don't view GNR like that.  Some of them might know certain people aren't in the band, but they don't care.  I would say that when most people attend a GNR show, they aren't going into it thinking it's only "Axl's band".  I would argue that most people are going in and coming out saying they saw Guns N Roses.  In 20 years from now, if someone says they saw GNR in 2006, the majority of the response will be "cool".  The majority won't be, "but it was only Axl Rose who wasted so much talent and only put out 1 album after 1993."  Those are comments from people on fan sites. 

Think about it.  I went to a Culture Club concert the other night.  Few years back I went to a Little River Band concert.  I have no idea if the original band members are still in the Culture Club besides Boy George.  And I DO know that Little River Band has had more lineup changes than Guns N Roses, and they don't have their lead singer.  But for the most part, neither concert had people talking about anything other than "the songs". 

So yes, GNR has lost popularity over the years...but I think it has more to do with not putting out music as opposed to lineup changes.  If they would have put out 5 albums with some good music out over the last 20 years as opposed to 1, they would be much better off.  Of course, there would always be those who lost interest after the band changed, but those are few really.  And with new music, would come new fans.  Most just care about music. 

Just like the story shared by skydog above.  The guy (probably the average music listener), had no idea Guns N Roses was playing. He bought a ticket, went in, and (I think) enjoyed it.  I doubt he was saying "but this is just Axls band".

With all due respect to Culture Club and Little River Band, even at the height of their respective popularities, they were never even close to GnR?s status.  That?s why the revolving door of musicians isn?t that much of an issue for them.  No one gives a shit if the Cleveland Browns get rid of their quarterback?but if the Patriots cut Brady?then they better succeed with his replacement or else they're going to be subject to a lot of ridicule and second guessing.

Yes, some truth to this.  However, I used those bands as examples because I personally saw their shows.  You could use a bunch of bands as examples where they may have lineup changes, but it doesn't really affect them.  It's about the music.

[LongGoneDay]

I don't get DX and Jarmos argument? 

I think we all agree that the demand for GnR is less than what it was back in the heyday because?well, because that?s incredibly obvious.  Where people disagree (I think) is the reason for the decrease in interest. 

The reason for the decrease is either (a) consistent with the decrease in demand for other rock bands, (b) the result of Axl being the only original member and only releasing one album in 20+ years, or (c) something else. 

Sounds like Jarmo believes the smaller venues and attendance are because of choice (a), while D-X and others (including me) think it?s both (a) and, to a larger extent, (b).  Guns n Roses is now really only seen as Axl Rose?s band?and while that?s enough to keep some people going, the drop off in interest is, IMO, because it?s only him?and he hasn?t done that much in terms of releasing new music.  When people see Guns now, they see Axl, guitarists they don?t bother learning who they are because, once you do, they?re probably no longer in the band, and a small amount of new material.  People see wasted opportunity?particularly because they know how special Axl is as a performer/writer, and can?t understand how someone with that much talent has only managed to release one album in 20+ years.  After getting sole control of Guns, he hasn?t done much to move the meter, and that?s why the interest is lacking.  Or rock is dead.  That sounds better, especially to the Axl faithful. 

I believe it's a result of both things you mentioned..(a and b), but more so the lack of material to stay relevant and not as much about Axl being the only original member.  Members come and go with SO many bands and I think the music is what's more important.  I think a lot of your comments are views from the die hard fan....or a true rock n roll fan and are a little far fetched.  Seeing only Axl, wasted opportunity, how special Axl was, etc.....I don't believe most see it that way.  And when I say MOST, I'm referring to what I would call an average music listener.  When you look at the grand scheme of things, there are very few people who know what's going on with GNR, and even fewer who care! And it's not just GNR.  The average music listener probably couldn't tell you much about any band for that matter.  I can point to any of my friends and tell you that they don't view GNR like that.  Some of them might know certain people aren't in the band, but they don't care.  I would say that when most people attend a GNR show, they aren't going into it thinking it's only "Axl's band".  I would argue that most people are going in and coming out saying they saw Guns N Roses.  In 20 years from now, if someone says they saw GNR in 2006, the majority of the response will be "cool".  The majority won't be, "but it was only Axl Rose who wasted so much talent and only put out 1 album after 1993."  Those are comments from people on fan sites. 

Think about it.  I went to a Culture Club concert the other night.  Few years back I went to a Little River Band concert.  I have no idea if the original band members are still in the Culture Club besides Boy George.  And I DO know that Little River Band has had more lineup changes than Guns N Roses, and they don't have their lead singer.  But for the most part, neither concert had people talking about anything other than "the songs". 

So yes, GNR has lost popularity over the years...but I think it has more to do with not putting out music as opposed to lineup changes.  If they would have put out 5 albums with some good music out over the last 20 years as opposed to 1, they would be much better off.  Of course, there would always be those who lost interest after the band changed, but those are few really.  And with new music, would come new fans.  Most just care about music. 

Just like the story shared by skydog above.  The guy (probably the average music listener), had no idea Guns N Roses was playing. He bought a ticket, went in, and (I think) enjoyed it.  I doubt he was saying "but this is just Axls band".

I convinced 10 of my friends who didn?t get the chance to catch classic Guns live, to check out the 2006 incarnation in Worcester.
My brother and I had caught them recently at the Hammerstein, and were pretty blown away by how great Axl sounded.

Some of my friends were more impressed than others. One thought it was great, one left during the encore, but most were at least entertained.
But if you asked any of them today if they have ever seen Guns N? Roses live, they would tell you ?no?.
They saw Axl Rose and a whole bunch of people they didn?t recognize playing GN?R songs.

As we get older, this is what happens.
Although few bands take it to the extreme Axl has, turnover in personnel is more common than not in rock bands.
We only get so many years to catch bands in their prime, and with their core lineups in tact.

I?ve seen Alice In Chains a few times since 2006, but I never got the chance to see Alice In Chains.
I?ve seen the New York Dolls a couple times since 2004, but Arthur Kane, Johnny Thunders, Billy Murcia, and Jerry Nolan were all dead and buried by then, so I never got the chance to see the New York Dolls.

People go, because they want to hear the songs they love live, or catch the members, and sometimes the singular member that does remain.
So, yes, the music is what?s most important, but the name of the band means something to people.

There will always be some fans that put one specific member of a band on a pedestal, and build them up and convince themselves that one member is and was always "the band".
Most people see them for what they are. A group of people contributing their ideas and talent to create music together. Those players aren?t as disposable to some fans as they are to others.

It doesn't mean people won?t enjoy seeing later incarnations live for what they are. People buy tickets to have a good time.
Most know the deal going in. But seeing Lynyrd Skynyrd in ?73 is a lot different than seeing them in 2015, and I think most people recognize this.

[damnthehaters]

The original posters claims the 2012 UCAP shows were booked in those venues because that's what the demand was.

I pointed out why I disagree and why I think they booked those shows, multiple times.

GN'R has  history of playing smaller club gigs, and it's not because they can't play in a bigger venue.
Nowhere did I claim GN'R today, or rock music in general, is as popular as in say 1991.




/jarmo

And I agree with this as well like I posted in my response above.  Just because a band does small shows, doesn't mean it's because they HAVE to.  GNR isnt selling like they used to, but they could still go to Philly for example and bring in much more than 2,000 like at the Electric Factory.  They didn't HAVE to play the Electric Factory.  They could have played a bigger venue and more than likely brought in 8-12k.  

[damnthehaters]

[/quote]

I convinced 10 of my friends who didn?t get the chance to catch classic Guns live, to check out the 2006 incarnation in Worcester.
My brother and I had caught them recently at the Hammerstein, and were pretty blown away by how great Axl sounded.

Some of my friends were more impressed than others. One thought it was great, one left during the encore, but most were at least entertained.
But if you asked any of them today if they have ever seen Guns N? Roses live, they would tell you ?no?.
They saw Axl Rose and a whole bunch of people they didn?t recognize playing GN?R songs.

As we get older, this is what happens.
Although few bands take it to the extreme Axl has, turnover in personnel is more common than not in rock bands.
We only get so many years to catch bands in their prime, and with their core lineups in tact.

I?ve seen Alice In Chains a few times since 2006, but I never got the chance to see Alice In Chains.
I?ve seen the New York Dolls a couple times since 2004, but Arthur Kane, Johnny Thunders, Billy Murcia, and Jerry Nolan were all dead and buried by then, so I never got the chance to see the New York Dolls.

People go, because they want to hear the songs they love live, or catch the members, and sometimes the singular member that does remain.
So, yes, the music is what?s most important, but the name of the band means something to people.

There will always be some fans that put one specific member of a band on a pedestal, and build them up and convince themselves that one member is and was always "the band".
Most people see them for what they are. A group of people contributing their ideas and talent to create music together. Those players aren?t as disposable to some fans as they are to others.

It doesn't mean people won?t enjoy seeing later incarnations live for what they are. People buy tickets to have a good time.
Most know the deal going in. But seeing Lynyrd Skynyrd in ?73 is a lot different than seeing them in 2015, and I think most people recognize this.
[/quote]

Ok, you and some of your friends are those people I'm NOT talking about.  You said it yourself in the bold statement above...you are a group of people who view it as "classic" guns n roses.  I believe there are more people out there that just view them as guns n roses, regardless of who's in the band.  Your one of the few people I'm talking about, that when your 70 years old and telling your grand children that you saw guns n roses in 2006, who you follow it up with..."but it wasn't the classic lineup, it was just the lead singer".  I would argue that MOST people out there will just say that they saw guns n roses. 

[D-GenerationX]

I convinced 10 of my friends who didn?t get the chance to catch classic Guns live, to check out the 2006 incarnation in Worcester.
My brother and I had caught them recently at the Hammerstein, and were pretty blown away by how great Axl sounded.

Some of my friends were more impressed than others. One thought it was great, one left during the encore, but most were at least entertained.
But if you asked any of them today if they have ever seen Guns N? Roses live, they would tell you ?no?.
They saw Axl Rose and a whole bunch of people they didn?t recognize playing GN?R songs.

Yep.  Shit, even *I* do that.

People know they are my favorite band.  Then they ask me if I have ever seen them live.  I use the Chris Farley air quotes and told them I saw "Guns N' Roses".

I have yet to have anyone not understand what I meant by it, nor feel the need to correct me in some way. 

[JAEBALL]

I have never been critical of Axl using the name Guns N roses... might not have been my personal preference, but it's his right and I'm glad to have had the Guns N Roses concerts that I have been able to attend.

Guns N Roses broke up a long time ago... that sucked.. but that's life... They were unable to continue together for a variety of different reasons.

Then Axl formed a completely new band called guns N roses... they made an album which I really like. Unfortunately that band didn't stay together for long either, and we have gotten a few different versions of the touring band over the years to play the songs.

I'm able to separate the different bands... same name...different bands... what's so hard ?

Now... two more guitar players are gone... so barring the miraculous return of certain players... a very different band will once again use the name Guns N Roses , and Axl will sings his songs... and we will all be there.. because we all love the guy as a performer/entertainer.

What else is there to break down for the 3700th time?

[Ginger King]

I have never been critical of Axl using the name Guns N roses... might not have been my personal preference, but it's his right and I'm glad to have had the Guns N Roses concerts that I have been able to attend.

Guns N Roses broke up a long time ago... that sucked.. but that's life... They were unable to continue together for a variety of different reasons.

Then Axl formed a completely new band called guns N roses... they made an album which I really like. Unfortunately that band didn't stay together for long either, and we have gotten a few different versions of the touring band over the years to play the songs.

I'm able to separate the different bands... same name...different bands... what's so hard ?

Now... two more guitar players are gone... so barring the miraculous return of certain players... a very different band will once again use the name Guns N Roses , and Axl will sings his songs... and we will all be there.. because we all love the guy as a performer/entertainer.

What else is there to break down for the 3700th time?

I think the point is that there wouldn't be such a clear separation between classic lineup and others if there was more output during the last 20+ years.  You wouldn't need the air quotes when saying you saw Guns n Roses in 2014.

[D-GenerationX]

And I agree with this as well like I posted in my response above.  Just because a band does small shows, doesn't mean it's because they HAVE to.  GNR isnt selling like they used to, but they could still go to Philly for example and bring in much more than 2,000 like at the Electric Factory.  They didn't HAVE to play the Electric Factory.  They could have played a bigger venue and more than likely brought in 8-12k.  

Hmm...maybe.  I think that's your high end, that figure.

Problem is, at least hear, we don't really have a venue that size.  We have a few that can seat a few thousand.  But you get over that, you have to go Wells Fargo, which is 20,000.  No shot they are filling that, and then you'd have to hang a shitload of black curtains over unsold seats.

The point I have been making, is that this is not specific to my town.  That's going to be the case in just about any 20,000 seat arena, thus making it unlikely those sorts of venues would be the goto move when it comes time to schedule.

Clear Channel lost a fortune in 2002 because they booked these basketball/hockey arenas that weren't close to being full.  I think that is the case now, as well.

[D-GenerationX]

I think the point is that there wouldn't be such a clear separation between classic lineup and others if there was more output during the last 20+ years.  You wouldn't need the air quotes when saying you saw Guns n Roses in 2014.

Exactly.

You didn't need the air quotes for "Van Halen" with Sammy.  Because that incarnation put out enough stuff to establish their own legacy.

This new incarnation of GNR has never done that.  Thankfully, they are starting to finally look very seriously at what they are doing in that regard.

[jarmo]

And I agree with this as well like I posted in my response above.  Just because a band does small shows, doesn't mean it's because they HAVE to.  GNR isnt selling like they used to, but they could still go to Philly for example and bring in much more than 2,000 like at the Electric Factory.  They didn't HAVE to play the Electric Factory.  They could have played a bigger venue and more than likely brought in 8-12k.  

That show was announced one week in advance. You don't really announce arena shows with such short notice. It was also just weeks/months since the band was in the same area playing arenas.

Not that this matters to some...



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

I said it then, and I still say it now.

Took tremendous courage on Axl's part to come back here.  This town is loaded with hooligans, and he was in a small enough place you could peg him easily.

Also have to give him credit for at least making a pass at an explanation for 2002.  Even took some of the blame, which is like seeing a blue moon. 

Have to give the man credit for stepping up.

[mortismurphy]

I don't get DX and Jarmos argument? 

I think we all agree that the demand for GnR is less than what it was back in the heyday because?well, because that?s incredibly obvious.  Where people disagree (I think) is the reason for the decrease in interest. 

The reason for the decrease is either (a) consistent with the decrease in demand for other rock bands, (b) the result of Axl being the only original member and only releasing one album in 20+ years, or (c) something else. 

Sounds like Jarmo believes the smaller venues and attendance are because of choice (a), while D-X and others (including me) think it?s both (a) and, to a larger extent, (b).  Guns n Roses is now really only seen as Axl Rose?s band?and while that?s enough to keep some people going, the drop off in interest is, IMO, because it?s only him?and he hasn?t done that much in terms of releasing new music.  When people see Guns now, they see Axl, guitarists they don?t bother learning who they are because, once you do, they?re probably no longer in the band, and a small amount of new material.  People see wasted opportunity?particularly because they know how special Axl is as a performer/writer, and can?t understand how someone with that much talent has only managed to release one album in 20+ years.  After getting sole control of Guns, he hasn?t done much to move the meter, and that?s why the interest is lacking.  Or rock is dead.  That sounds better, especially to the Axl faithful. 

I believe it's a result of both things you mentioned..(a and b), but more so the lack of material to stay relevant and not as much about Axl being the only original member.  Members come and go with SO many bands and I think the music is what's more important.  I think a lot of your comments are views from the die hard fan....or a true rock n roll fan and are a little far fetched.  Seeing only Axl, wasted opportunity, how special Axl was, etc.....I don't believe most see it that way.  And when I say MOST, I'm referring to what I would call an average music listener.  When you look at the grand scheme of things, there are very few people who know what's going on with GNR, and even fewer who care! And it's not just GNR.  The average music listener probably couldn't tell you much about any band for that matter.  I can point to any of my friends and tell you that they don't view GNR like that.  Some of them might know certain people aren't in the band, but they don't care.  I would say that when most people attend a GNR show, they aren't going into it thinking it's only "Axl's band".  I would argue that most people are going in and coming out saying they saw Guns N Roses.  In 20 years from now, if someone says they saw GNR in 2006, the majority of the response will be "cool".  The majority won't be, "but it was only Axl Rose who wasted so much talent and only put out 1 album after 1993."  Those are comments from people on fan sites. 

Think about it.  I went to a Culture Club concert the other night.  Few years back I went to a Little River Band concert.  I have no idea if the original band members are still in the Culture Club besides Boy George.  And I DO know that Little River Band has had more lineup changes than Guns N Roses, and they don't have their lead singer.  But for the most part, neither concert had people talking about anything other than "the songs". 

So yes, GNR has lost popularity over the years...but I think it has more to do with not putting out music as opposed to lineup changes.  If they would have put out 5 albums with some good music out over the last 20 years as opposed to 1, they would be much better off.  Of course, there would always be those who lost interest after the band changed, but those are few really.  And with new music, would come new fans.  Most just care about music. 

Just like the story shared by skydog above.  The guy (probably the average music listener), had no idea Guns N Roses was playing. He bought a ticket, went in, and (I think) enjoyed it.  I doubt he was saying "but this is just Axls band".

I convinced 10 of my friends who didn?t get the chance to catch classic Guns live, to check out the 2006 incarnation in Worcester.
My brother and I had caught them recently at the Hammerstein, and were pretty blown away by how great Axl sounded.

Some of my friends were more impressed than others. One thought it was great, one left during the encore, but most were at least entertained.
But if you asked any of them today if they have ever seen Guns N? Roses live, they would tell you ?no?.
They saw Axl Rose and a whole bunch of people they didn?t recognize playing GN?R songs.

As we get older, this is what happens.
Although few bands take it to the extreme Axl has, turnover in personnel is more common than not in rock bands.
We only get so many years to catch bands in their prime, and with their core lineups in tact.

I?ve seen Alice In Chains a few times since 2006, but I never got the chance to see Alice In Chains.
I?ve seen the New York Dolls a couple times since 2004, but Arthur Kane, Johnny Thunders, Billy Murcia, and Jerry Nolan were all dead and buried by then, so I never got the chance to see the New York Dolls.

People go, because they want to hear the songs they love live, or catch the members, and sometimes the singular member that does remain.
So, yes, the music is what?s most important, but the name of the band means something to people.

There will always be some fans that put one specific member of a band on a pedestal, and build them up and convince themselves that one member is and was always "the band".
Most people see them for what they are. A group of people contributing their ideas and talent to create music together. Those players aren?t as disposable to some fans as they are to others.

It doesn't mean people won?t enjoy seeing later incarnations live for what they are. People buy tickets to have a good time.
Most know the deal going in. But seeing Lynyrd Skynyrd in ?73 is a lot different than seeing them in 2015, and I think most people recognize this.

I have to say when ever I had tickets I always felt somewhat odd and phony saying 'I'm going to see Guns N' Roses', or ''I have Guns N' Roses' tickets. I would pause before saying that name: 'Guns N' Roses'. It never flowed easily.

[D-GenerationX]

Most of my friends and acquaintances talk about them like a mutual friend or family member that died.

"Still listening to Guns N' Roses?"

"Yep."

"Just such a shame.  Such a shame what happened there."

[mortismurphy]

Most of my friends and acquaintances talk about them like a mutual friend or family member that died.

"Still listening to Guns N' Roses?"

"Yep."

"Just such a shame.  Such a shame what happened there."

If someone casual said, ''have you ever seen Guns N' Roses?'', you know they mean the band featuring Axl and Slash, which wrote Sweet Child O' Mine and November Rain. I am always embarrassed when I explain that I've seen a version of the band that does not meet those requirements. Either they are not aware that Axl continued the band with a different bunch of guys (they are usually completely confused and a bit angry by that - ''how could Axl do that?'') or they say, ''oh - did he ever get Chinese Democracy out (lol)?'' or ''oh yeh, Axl now plays with a guy with a KFC bucket on his head!''.

[jarmo]

I said it then, and I still say it now.

Took tremendous courage on Axl's part to come back here.  This town is loaded with hooligans, and he was in a small enough place you could peg him easily.

Also have to give him credit for at least making a pass at an explanation for 2002.  Even took some of the blame, which is like seeing a blue moon. 

Have to give the man credit for stepping up.

"Before we start this next song. We haven't been back here in a long time, right? I never talked publicly about what went down. A lot of that was because there were a lot of legalities behind the scenes so I had to keep my mouth shut for five years or I would've got sued for about everything I own by fucking corporate radio and shit. They were backing our tour. So I had to shut up. I mean, I did cancel the first show, at about six in the morning. My manager told me he canceled it and then didn't. And then Clear Channel wanted us to fuck up, because they wanted to end the tour. 'Cause they had some shit going on in Florida or something? I don't know? a whole bunch of bullshit. But I got really sick. It had nothing to do with fur coats and basketball games, you know. I love Philly. I came to visit here a few times and I really liked it. So on this we decided, "OK we're gonna risk it, what if we can throw in a show in Philly? And get Philly in?" So it's good to be here with you people tonight. I wanna apologize for my part in that. You know, so? I'm not saying I'm innocent."

/jarmo

[TheBaconman]

Most of my friends and acquaintances talk about them like a mutual friend or family member that died.

"Still listening to Guns N' Roses?"

"Yep."

"Just such a shame.  Such a shame what happened there."

Not saying this about your family or friends

But most people are useless in general

I couldn't care less what the unwashed masses opinion is on guns n roses

There are a lot of mouth breathers   People that can't stand to the right on escaladers and people that always think there check bag will be there first off.   So they have to stand right at the front!!!   

Out there!

It's very easy to say this band is not guns n roses

Just like its easy to go threw a drive threw fast food place for dinner

It actually takes effort to follow a band   Just like cooking a meal

Next time your friends or family comment on guns n roses.  Call them a stiff   From TheBaconman

[D-GenerationX]

Most of my friends and acquaintances talk about them like a mutual friend or family member that died.

"Still listening to Guns N' Roses?"

"Yep."

"Just such a shame.  Such a shame what happened there."

Not saying this about your family or friends

But most people are useless in general

I couldn't care less what the unwashed masses opinion is on guns n roses

There are a lot of mouth breathers   People that can't stand to the right on escaladers and people that always think there check bag will be there first off.   So they have to stand right at the front!!!   

Out there!

It's very easy to say this band is not guns n roses

Just like its easy to go threw a drive threw fast food place for dinner

It actually takes effort to follow a band   Just like cooking a meal

Next time your friends or family comment on guns n roses.  Call them a stiff   From TheBaconman

Ah, but what if they agreed with you?

[mortismurphy]

If you were attempting to defend the new band to casuals it would be easier with some sort of reference point. There are no songs the people could have theoretically heard. There is only one album and that did not resonate. The new band do not have a Heaven and Hell, Burn or 5150.