Axl and Slash friends again?

[estebanf]

I used to have Emily's patience back in the day...

Bands don't change their names or their identities based on the opinions and likes of a bunch of whiny ''fans''. Is this discussion being held in other bands message forums? Are there people claiming ''The Division Bell'' is not a Pink Floyd album but a ''new Pink Floyd'' album? are the fans of AC/DC, Kiss and Metallica discussing this shit? or are we the only retarded ones?

[D-GenerationX]

Bands don't change their names or their identities based on the opinions and likes of a bunch of whiny ''fans''. Is this discussion being held in other bands message forums? Are there people claiming ''The Division Bell'' is not a Pink Floyd album but a ''new Pink Floyd'' album? are the fans of AC/DC, Kiss and Metallica discussing this shit? or are we the only retarded ones?

Though I tend to loathe this argument and feel its used as a crutch, in this case, it applies.

No one is quite like Guns N' Roses.  No other big time band has ever had this set of circumstances.

[estebanf]

Bands don't change their names or their identities based on the opinions and likes of a bunch of whiny ''fans''. Is this discussion being held in other bands message forums? Are there people claiming ''The Division Bell'' is not a Pink Floyd album but a ''new Pink Floyd'' album? are the fans of AC/DC, Kiss and Metallica discussing this shit? or are we the only retarded ones?

Though I tend to loathe this argument and feel its used as a crutch, in this case, it applies.

No one is quite like Guns N' Roses.  No other big time band has ever had this set of circumstances.

It should be something very simple to understand!

I clearly DO NOT want Axl to reunite with Slash, but if this reunion happens, I will have to decide if I'll keep being a fan of the band, based in the new music this new (or old) lineup creates.

What I would never do, because it's an absolute nonsense, is denying this hypothetical new lineup the status of ''Guns N' Roses''. It will be GNR. If i thought otherwise, I would be a case for a psychiatrist.

[EvilSmurf]

While it is semantics, and I don't want to get in the middle of this...

Yes, Axl legally owns the name Guns N' Roses, and I haven't seen anyone dispute that (OscarAxl22 included)... where public perception and interpretation come into play is that a name doesn't make a band in some peoples minds, if people choose not to support a specific version of that entity because it doesn't contain the members that they consider to be the 'real band' then they have that right (right or wrong).

Some people (right or wrong) think Lynyrd Skynyrd ended when the plane crashed, yet the name was covered by a contract stating that at least three original members needed to be around to use the name. Ronnie VanZant's widow has since edited this as there is currently only one original member left in the band, but purists view it as a tribute band. Some people look at Axl and GnR the same way. I remember being in the crowd at the Fleet Center in Boston in 2002 and listening to people all round me groaning and asking questions about where Slash was etc...

Is it right? Legally no... but this like the problem with Slash making this 'news' public is up for judgement by the court of public opinion like it or not.

Nobody is disputing people's rights to like, dislike, support or conversely not support the band- they absolutely do not get to determine what GNR is.

Their dislike doesn't make the current lineup from any year any less 'real'

That is delusional thinking, not opinion.

For instance-I didn't like the new football franchises when they came out, I would tell some friends that had started following  them that they weren't "real" teams- of course they were real, I was ridiculously wrong and disrespecting their teams.

Our likes and dislikes do not determine what is real, opinions don't alter facts.

So hypothetically speaking, if Slash and Duff uncovered an old recorded conversation with Axl that legally entitled them to the GNR name, got back the name in court, and went back out touring as GNR without Axl you would still support the new 'real' GNR and chastise the fans that post here saying it's not really GNR without Axl?

[sky dog]

quite sure a lot of Pink Floyd fans don't consider any releases after Waters left as Pink Floyd....all I got.

[D-GenerationX]

I clearly DO NOT want Axl to reunite with Slash, but if this reunion happens, I will have to decide if I'll keep being a fan of the band, based in the new music this new (or old) lineup creates.

"Still"?  Haven't you been a fan the whole time?

[sky dog]

to clarify my point......Waters was way more important than Gilmour to Pink Floyd. Axl wasn't quite Waters, but he was damn close.

[D-GenerationX]

to clarify my point......Waters was way more important than Gilmour to Pink Floyd. Axl wasn't
quite Waters, but he was damn close.

Would be hard to sell a Guns N' Roses without him.

[GypsySoul]

While it is semantics, and I don't want to get in the middle of this...

Yes, Axl legally owns the name Guns N' Roses

Speaking of semantics .... Since Axl does own the Guns N' Roses name, wouldn't that mean that if Slash were to rejoin the band, he would actually just be a "hired gun"?

[EmilyGNR]

While it is semantics, and I don't want to get in the middle of this...

Yes, Axl legally owns the name Guns N' Roses, and I haven't seen anyone dispute that (OscarAxl22 included)... where public perception and interpretation come into play is that a name doesn't make a band in some peoples minds, if people choose not to support a specific version of that entity because it doesn't contain the members that they consider to be the 'real band' then they have that right (right or wrong).

Some people (right or wrong) think Lynyrd Skynyrd ended when the plane crashed, yet the name was covered by a contract stating that at least three original members needed to be around to use the name. Ronnie VanZant's widow has since edited this as there is currently only one original member left in the band, but purists view it as a tribute band. Some people look at Axl and GnR the same way. I remember being in the crowd at the Fleet Center in Boston in 2002 and listening to people all round me groaning and asking questions about where Slash was etc...

Is it right? Legally no... but this like the problem with Slash making this 'news' public is up for judgement by the court of public opinion like it or not.

Nobody is disputing people's rights to like, dislike, support or conversely not support the band- they absolutely do not get to determine what GNR is.

Their dislike doesn't make the current lineup from any year any less 'real'

That is delusional thinking, not opinion.

For instance-I didn't like the new football franchises when they came out, I would tell some friends that had started following  them that they weren't "real" teams- of course they were real, I was ridiculously wrong and disrespecting their teams.

Our likes and dislikes do not determine what is real, opinions don't alter facts.

So hypothetically speaking, if Slash and Duff uncovered an old recorded conversation with Axl that legally entitled them to the GNR name, got back the name in court, and went back out touring as GNR without Axl you would still support the new 'real' GNR and chastise the fans that post here saying it's not really GNR without Axl?

My hypothetical self wouldn't say it wasn't 'real' because I didn't like it, I've gotten too old for idiocy of this caliber.

I can think up thousands of unlikely theoretical scenarios but it changes nothing in this discussion.

[estebanf]

to clarify my point......Waters was way more important than Gilmour to Pink Floyd. Axl wasn't quite Waters, but he was damn close.

that's merely an opinion. I think different, for example.

That GNR is named GNR and not otherwise is a FACT that your opinion(s) can't change.

[D-GenerationX]

OK, suppose you are a fan of the old band.  You also like the new band.

Are the two mutually exclusive?  If the old band cranked it back up again, how are you not onboard?

[EmilyGNR]

While it is semantics, and I don't want to get in the middle of this...

Yes, Axl legally owns the name Guns N' Roses

Speaking of semantics .... Since Axl does own the Guns N' Roses name, wouldn't that mean that if Slash were to rejoin the band, he would actually just be a "hired gun"?

If Tracii was hired would he be a hired Guns or a hired Gun? :p

[EvilSmurf]

While it is semantics, and I don't want to get in the middle of this...

Yes, Axl legally owns the name Guns N' Roses, and I haven't seen anyone dispute that (OscarAxl22 included)... where public perception and interpretation come into play is that a name doesn't make a band in some peoples minds, if people choose not to support a specific version of that entity because it doesn't contain the members that they consider to be the 'real band' then they have that right (right or wrong).

Some people (right or wrong) think Lynyrd Skynyrd ended when the plane crashed, yet the name was covered by a contract stating that at least three original members needed to be around to use the name. Ronnie VanZant's widow has since edited this as there is currently only one original member left in the band, but purists view it as a tribute band. Some people look at Axl and GnR the same way. I remember being in the crowd at the Fleet Center in Boston in 2002 and listening to people all round me groaning and asking questions about where Slash was etc...

Is it right? Legally no... but this like the problem with Slash making this 'news' public is up for judgement by the court of public opinion like it or not.

Nobody is disputing people's rights to like, dislike, support or conversely not support the band- they absolutely do not get to determine what GNR is.

Their dislike doesn't make the current lineup from any year any less 'real'

That is delusional thinking, not opinion.

For instance-I didn't like the new football franchises when they came out, I would tell some friends that had started following  them that they weren't "real" teams- of course they were real, I was ridiculously wrong and disrespecting their teams.

Our likes and dislikes do not determine what is real, opinions don't alter facts.

So hypothetically speaking, if Slash and Duff uncovered an old recorded conversation with Axl that legally entitled them to the GNR name, got back the name in court, and went back out touring as GNR without Axl you would still support the new 'real' GNR and chastise the fans that post here saying it's not really GNR without Axl?

My hypothetical self wouldn't say it wasn't 'real' because I didn't like it, I've gotten too old for idiocy of this caliber.

Suuuuure, I'll take your word for it.

[OscarAxl22]

yet here she is... still stamping her feet. 

[EmilyGNR]

While it is semantics, and I don't want to get in the middle of this...

Yes, Axl legally owns the name Guns N' Roses, and I haven't seen anyone dispute that (OscarAxl22 included)... where public perception and interpretation come into play is that a name doesn't make a band in some peoples minds, if people choose not to support a specific version of that entity because it doesn't contain the members that they consider to be the 'real band' then they have that right (right or wrong).

Some people (right or wrong) think Lynyrd Skynyrd ended when the plane crashed, yet the name was covered by a contract stating that at least three original members needed to be around to use the name. Ronnie VanZant's widow has since edited this as there is currently only one original member left in the band, but purists view it as a tribute band. Some people look at Axl and GnR the same way. I remember being in the crowd at the Fleet Center in Boston in 2002 and listening to people all round me groaning and asking questions about where Slash was etc...

Is it right? Legally no... but this like the problem with Slash making this 'news' public is up for judgement by the court of public opinion like it or not.

Nobody is disputing people's rights to like, dislike, support or conversely not support the band- they absolutely do not get to determine what GNR is.

Their dislike doesn't make the current lineup from any year any less 'real'

That is delusional thinking, not opinion.

For instance-I didn't like the new football franchises when they came out, I would tell some friends that had started following  them that they weren't "real" teams- of course they were real, I was ridiculously wrong and disrespecting their teams.

Our likes and dislikes do not determine what is real, opinions don't alter facts.

So hypothetically speaking, if Slash and Duff uncovered an old recorded conversation with Axl that legally entitled them to the GNR name, got back the name in court, and went back out touring as GNR without Axl you would still support the new 'real' GNR and chastise the fans that post here saying it's not really GNR without Axl?

My hypothetical self wouldn't say it wasn't 'real' because I didn't like it, I've gotten too old for idiocy of this caliber.

Suuuuure, I'll take your word for it.

I answered the question honestly and sincerely and you reply with a sarcastic troll comment? Says more about you than me.

All your hypothetical scenarios have squat to do with this actual discussion.

[EmilyGNR]

yet here she is... still stamping her feet. 

No we are having a discussion, grow up and join us if you are capable.

It's a shame you ran away so upset, sorry you were proven wrong.

[estebanf]

OK, suppose you are a fan of the old band.  You also like the new band.

Are the two mutually exclusive?  If the old band cranked it back up again, how are you not onboard?

There are 2 things I am considering:

- Slash did a lot of harm to Guns N' Roses, the band I am fan and went to see 16 times.
- IMO, time has prooved that Slash was a hand brake to Axl's creativity. He is an average player/writer, Axl is brilliant, and I think Axl should surround himself with other brilliant musicians like he did until 2006 (Brain, Bucket, Richard, Robin, Chris, the best examples).

I am absolutely sure Axl can create good music under any circunstances, no matter what, so I'm pretty sure I will like whatever comes from a band that has him inside.

The question is: what scenario do I prefer? I prefer the way Axl was doing things in the past. BBF was an inevitable regression, because replacing Buckethead is just impossible. The addition of Ashba was a HUGE regression. Robin is an outstanding musician, hard to replace, but there were better options for sure. And Slash is gonna be IMO the biggest regression of all. I went to see Slash last year and it was the first time in my life I've heard GNR songs and felt like ''meh''... every time I hear new Slash songs I see him trying to repeat the past over and over but he hasn't what it takes to do it properly, like AC/DC does, for example. His solo albums are boring as hell. I just dont want GNR to take that path!

[EvilSmurf]

While it is semantics, and I don't want to get in the middle of this...

Yes, Axl legally owns the name Guns N' Roses, and I haven't seen anyone dispute that (OscarAxl22 included)... where public perception and interpretation come into play is that a name doesn't make a band in some peoples minds, if people choose not to support a specific version of that entity because it doesn't contain the members that they consider to be the 'real band' then they have that right (right or wrong).

Some people (right or wrong) think Lynyrd Skynyrd ended when the plane crashed, yet the name was covered by a contract stating that at least three original members needed to be around to use the name. Ronnie VanZant's widow has since edited this as there is currently only one original member left in the band, but purists view it as a tribute band. Some people look at Axl and GnR the same way. I remember being in the crowd at the Fleet Center in Boston in 2002 and listening to people all round me groaning and asking questions about where Slash was etc...

Is it right? Legally no... but this like the problem with Slash making this 'news' public is up for judgement by the court of public opinion like it or not.

Nobody is disputing people's rights to like, dislike, support or conversely not support the band- they absolutely do not get to determine what GNR is.

Their dislike doesn't make the current lineup from any year any less 'real'

That is delusional thinking, not opinion.

For instance-I didn't like the new football franchises when they came out, I would tell some friends that had started following  them that they weren't "real" teams- of course they were real, I was ridiculously wrong and disrespecting their teams.

Our likes and dislikes do not determine what is real, opinions don't alter facts.

So hypothetically speaking, if Slash and Duff uncovered an old recorded conversation with Axl that legally entitled them to the GNR name, got back the name in court, and went back out touring as GNR without Axl you would still support the new 'real' GNR and chastise the fans that post here saying it's not really GNR without Axl?

My hypothetical self wouldn't say it wasn't 'real' because I didn't like it, I've gotten too old for idiocy of this caliber.

Suuuuure, I'll take your word for it.

I answered the question honestly and sincerely and you reply with a sarcastic troll comment? Says more about you than me.

All your hypothetical scenarios have squat to do with this actual discussion.

Sorry I shouldn't have used sarcasm. I should've said 'I don't believe you at all'. I'm sure you would've taken that better. Oh wait, I used sarcasm again.

To summarize what we've learned today:
If you say "I don't like the new GNR", that's OK.
If you say "I don't support the new GNR", that's OK too.
If you say, "I don't think the new GNR is the real GNR" then YOU'RE AN IDIOT!!!!
 

[EmilyGNR]

While it is semantics, and I don't want to get in the middle of this...

Yes, Axl legally owns the name Guns N' Roses, and I haven't seen anyone dispute that (OscarAxl22 included)... where public perception and interpretation come into play is that a name doesn't make a band in some peoples minds, if people choose not to support a specific version of that entity because it doesn't contain the members that they consider to be the 'real band' then they have that right (right or wrong).

Some people (right or wrong) think Lynyrd Skynyrd ended when the plane crashed, yet the name was covered by a contract stating that at least three original members needed to be around to use the name. Ronnie VanZant's widow has since edited this as there is currently only one original member left in the band, but purists view it as a tribute band. Some people look at Axl and GnR the same way. I remember being in the crowd at the Fleet Center in Boston in 2002 and listening to people all round me groaning and asking questions about where Slash was etc...

Is it right? Legally no... but this like the problem with Slash making this 'news' public is up for judgement by the court of public opinion like it or not.

Nobody is disputing people's rights to like, dislike, support or conversely not support the band- they absolutely do not get to determine what GNR is.

Their dislike doesn't make the current lineup from any year any less 'real'

That is delusional thinking, not opinion.

For instance-I didn't like the new football franchises when they came out, I would tell some friends that had started following  them that they weren't "real" teams- of course they were real, I was ridiculously wrong and disrespecting their teams.

Our likes and dislikes do not determine what is real, opinions don't alter facts.

So hypothetically speaking, if Slash and Duff uncovered an old recorded conversation with Axl that legally entitled them to the GNR name, got back the name in court, and went back out touring as GNR without Axl you would still support the new 'real' GNR and chastise the fans that post here saying it's not really GNR without Axl?

My hypothetical self wouldn't say it wasn't 'real' because I didn't like it, I've gotten too old for idiocy of this caliber.

Suuuuure, I'll take your word for it.

I answered the question honestly and sincerely and you reply with a sarcastic troll comment? Says more about you than me.

All your hypothetical scenarios have squat to do with this actual discussion.

Sorry I shouldn't have used sarcasm. I should've said 'I don't believe you at all'. I'm sure you would've taken that better. Oh wait, I used sarcasm again.

To summarize what we've learned today:
If you say "I don't like the new GNR", that's OK.
If you say "I don't support the new GNR", that's OK too.
If you say, "I don't think the new GNR is the real GNR" then YOU'RE AN IDIOT!!!!
 

No, you are simply factually incorrect and all your amusing little emoticons wont change that.

It is GNR whether you like it or not- pretty simple concept.