THEORY - axl saving chi dem 2 songs for possible reunion album???

[OscarAxl22]

It isn't semantics, those are facts.

On paper?  In a vacuum?  Technically? 

Yes, whichever of those phrases you pick to preface your comment that Slash of Duff are not true blue original members, you are correct.

But where does it resonate?  An argument's impact is only as good as its plausibility in the eyes of the folks.

Take one of your other standbys.  How you must be at a Guns N' Roses concert because...why, look right here!  Its says Guns N' Roses on my ticket!!

Paper, vaccum, technically...true.

Accepted by many people?  Not really.  Doesn't make you wrong, but I think its well fair to ask what you are really accomplishing past a "just sayin'" sort of retort that will be rejected by the many.

The truth remains the truth even if many are willfully ignorant or prefer lies.

The truth is the truth... .but what you fail to accept is that the wider majority aren't bothered by it and dont see it that way for obvious reasons.. whether it be who was the "founding members" or what people believe is the real guns n roses or what isnt. This seems to grate you heavily.

[jarmo]

Maybe you like to point out what the general public thinks because you don't like the actual truth?




/jarmo

[OscarAxl22]

Maybe you like to point out what the general public thinks because you don't like the actual truth?




/jarmo

hahaha everybody has their "own truth" mate... just look at this board. 

[jarmo]

Here's another truth: This is a Guns N' Roses fan site.
Also something some have a hard time understanding....




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Maybe you like to point out what the general public thinks because you don't like the actual truth?

Who's denying its the truth?  I personally said it was the truth several times.

What I also said is that, truth or not, no one gives a shit.  It wins you a bar bet, maybe, but no one really cares.

That's wrong? 

[EmilyGNR]

It isn't semantics, those are facts.

On paper?  In a vacuum?  Technically? 

Yes, whichever of those phrases you pick to preface your comment that Slash of Duff are not true blue original members, you are correct.

But where does it resonate?  An argument's impact is only as good as its plausibility in the eyes of the folks.

Take one of your other standbys.  How you must be at a Guns N' Roses concert because...why, look right here!  Its says Guns N' Roses on my ticket!!

Paper, vaccum, technically...true.

Accepted by many people?  Not really.  Doesn't make you wrong, but I think its well fair to ask what you are really accomplishing past a "just sayin'" sort of retort that will be rejected by the many.

The truth remains the truth even if many are willfully ignorant or prefer lies.

The truth is the truth... .but what you fail to accept is that the wider majority aren't bothered by it and dont see it that way for obvious reasons.. whether it be who was the "founding members" or what people believe is the real guns n roses or what isnt. This seems to grate you heavily.

Wrong again, save those special internet perceptions, they don't work for you particularly well.

I honestly don't care what the "wider majority accepts" it is GNR whether they like it or whether they don't -that is non-negotiable fact.

Are you really going to regurgitate the name discussion? It is a stupid, pointless, idiot wind topic.

[OscarAxl22]

It isn't semantics, those are facts.

On paper?  In a vacuum?  Technically? 

Yes, whichever of those phrases you pick to preface your comment that Slash of Duff are not true blue original members, you are correct.

But where does it resonate?  An argument's impact is only as good as its plausibility in the eyes of the folks.

Take one of your other standbys.  How you must be at a Guns N' Roses concert because...why, look right here!  Its says Guns N' Roses on my ticket!!

Paper, vaccum, technically...true.

Accepted by many people?  Not really.  Doesn't make you wrong, but I think its well fair to ask what you are really accomplishing past a "just sayin'" sort of retort that will be rejected by the many.

The truth remains the truth even if many are willfully ignorant or prefer lies.

The truth is the truth... .but what you fail to accept is that the wider majority aren't bothered by it and dont see it that way for obvious reasons.. whether it be who was the "founding members" or what people believe is the real guns n roses or what isnt. This seems to grate you heavily.

Wrong again, save those special internet perceptions, they don't work for you particularly well.

I honestly don't care what the "wider majority accepts" it is GNR whether they like it or whether they don't -that is non-negotiable fact.

Are you really going to regurgitate the name discussion? It is a stupid, pointless, idiot wind topic.

We know u dont care Emily. Thats not a problem for me. Living in your own world where everything is rosey and sweet in GNR land works for you.. indulge yourself. 

Here is a question... if the previous incarnation of guns was still together.. and Axl croaked tomorrow and that version of guns was continuing and they got a front man from a pub to sing the songs.. would you still call it guns n roses?

Just a question between forum friends 

[McGann]

I love Layne Staley.
I named a cat after him.
He is the reason

I'm an Alice fan.
Now William DuVall is lead
And they're still Alice.

I still enjoy them
And listen to their new stuff
Just as happily.

Alice in Chains lives
Without my once-fav singer.
Guns would live on, too.

Splash

/Mike

[sky dog]

God bless ya Mike...

[D-GenerationX]

MCGANN : A GOD

[ThatGuy]

Why would the other originals be at all interested in this?

Do you guys seriously think they respect any of this?  Guys that toured under their banner, playing their parts?  I know Izzy has played the odd song with them, and Duff even done a few shows.  And both were professional about it.  But do you really think they have much respect for their replacements or the whole operation?

I know there are some that cling like grim death to this narrative this is all a straight line evolution and its all good in the hood.  But is it?  We know damn well that the general public doesn't see it that way, and neither does a sizable portion of our own fanbase.  It reminds me of Republicans that shut down the government, and then try and say its "Obama's shutdown."  Please.  That might play in their echo chamber, but this is real life.

I find myself listening to this stuff about how some reunited band would play CD songs and work on CDs songs to be total fantasy.  I just don't see the interest on their part.

Ok, the point may be missed here or I may have not been clear enough. I wouldn't expect any original member to work on or rework any parts of their succesors... I was asking if axl may be saving the lyrics/vocals/melodies, or anything else HE has written himself for possible future collaboration with ex members.

[Princess Leia]

Can someone please post an interview where Tracii, Rob or Ole claimed to be founding members or claimed rights over anything GN?R related stuff?

In those early days GN?R was just a mere excuse for Axl and Tracii to play together. They were friends and they enjoyed each other company. They wanted to share the stage outside their respective bands. That?s all GN?R meant in the very begining.

That?s normal it happens to  all or most bands. Ringo Starr was not The Beatles first drummer. That doesn?t mean he is not a founding member. In fact The Fabulous Four were in the very begining five guys.

A stable band just doesn?t happen overnight

[The Wight Gunner]

Why would the other originals be at all interested in this?

Do you guys seriously think they respect any of this?  Guys that toured under their banner, playing their parts?  I know Izzy has played the odd song with them, and Duff even done a few shows.  And both were professional about it.  But do you really think they have much respect for their replacements or the whole operation?

I know there are some that cling like grim death to this narrative this is all a straight line evolution and its all good in the hood.  But is it?  We know damn well that the general public doesn't see it that way, and neither does a sizable portion of our own fanbase.  It reminds me of Republicans that shut down the government, and then try and say its "Obama's shutdown."  Please.  That might play in their echo chamber, but this is real life.

I find myself listening to this stuff about how some reunited band would play CD songs and work on CDs songs to be total fantasy.  I just don't see the interest on their part.

Ok, the point may be missed here or I may have not been clear enough. I wouldn't expect any original member to work on or rework any parts of their succesors... I was asking if axl may be saving the lyrics/vocals/melodies, or anything else HE has written himself for possible future collaboration with ex members.

Now that's not a bad shout.

Not saying its true, but it isn't inconceivable that Axl would hold a song back that he had somebody in mind to play on.  Like a signature song that his appreciation of a persons style would fit exactly, I'm thinking Duff and not Slash though....

[EmilyGNR]

It isn't semantics, those are facts.

On paper?  In a vacuum?  Technically? 

Yes, whichever of those phrases you pick to preface your comment that Slash of Duff are not true blue original members, you are correct.

But where does it resonate?  An argument's impact is only as good as its plausibility in the eyes of the folks.

Take one of your other standbys.  How you must be at a Guns N' Roses concert because...why, look right here!  Its says Guns N' Roses on my ticket!!

Paper, vaccum, technically...true.

Accepted by many people?  Not really.  Doesn't make you wrong, but I think its well fair to ask what you are really accomplishing past a "just sayin'" sort of retort that will be rejected by the many.

The truth remains the truth even if many are willfully ignorant or prefer lies.

The truth is the truth... .but what you fail to accept is that the wider majority aren't bothered by it and dont see it that way for obvious reasons.. whether it be who was the "founding members" or what people believe is the real guns n roses or what isnt. This seems to grate you heavily.

Wrong again, save those special internet perceptions, they don't work for you particularly well.

I honestly don't care what the "wider majority accepts" it is GNR whether they like it or whether they don't -that is non-negotiable fact.

Are you really going to regurgitate the name discussion? It is a stupid, pointless, idiot wind topic.

We know u dont care Emily. Thats not a problem for me. Living in your own world where everything is rosey and sweet in GNR land works for you.. indulge yourself. 

Here is a question... if the previous incarnation of guns was still together.. and Axl croaked tomorrow and that version of guns was continuing and they got a front man from a pub to sing the songs.. would you still call it guns n roses?

Just a question between forum friends 

Honestly not interested in entertaining your morbid fantasies, and I'm not your friend.

If you have issues with GNR, why are you here? This is a fan forum.

Take your twisted idiocy somewhere else.

[jarmo]

Who's denying its the truth?  I personally said it was the truth several times.

What I also said is that, truth or not, no one gives a shit.  It wins you a bar bet, maybe, but no one really cares.

That's wrong? 

Did I reply to you?
I offered a possible explanation on why some are so sensitive about the band's first year. If you point out to certain people that Slash wasn't the original guitar player in the band, it's met with "oh yeah? I don't care, that other dude didn't do anything in the band!". Well, that might be true, but it doesn't make the fact invalid. That's the whole point.

So to see GN'R fans on a GN'R fan site discuss this is a bit funny. I assume most people here know the band's history and don't need to point out which one of those guys had a bigger impact in the band and to ridicule the other.....

Why do some hate the original GN'R?
Joking, joking.... 



/jarmo

[Ginger King]

Who's denying its the truth?  I personally said it was the truth several times.

What I also said is that, truth or not, no one gives a shit.  It wins you a bar bet, maybe, but no one really cares.

That's wrong? 

Did I reply to you?
I offered a possible explanation on why some are so sensitive about the band's first year. If you point out to certain people that Slash wasn't the original guitar player in the band, it's met with "oh yeah? I don't care, that other dude didn't do anything in the band!". Well, that might be true, but it doesn't make the fact invalid. That's the whole point.

So to see GN'R fans on a GN'R fan site discuss this is a bit funny. I assume most people here know the band's history and don't need to point out which one of those guys had a bigger impact in the band and to ridicule the other.....

Why do some hate the original GN'R?
Joking, joking.... 



/jarmo

I find the whole, ?Slash isn?t an original member of Guns n Roses? to be very odd.  When the band was signed by Geffen, who were the members?  That?s it.  Period.  It?s like saying you?re on the basketball team, but really you were there for tryouts and a scrimmage, then got cut.  Sorry, you?re not on the team.  It?s a really poor attempt to inflate Axl?s importance to Guns (we get it, he?s the most important one), and to devalue the contributions of Slash, Duff, and Steven, and (not so) cleverly disguised as ?setting the record straight?.

Jarmo, honestly, do you really view Slash, Duff and Steven as replacement players?  Or, it is just an interesting footnote that, prior to the band being signed, Tracii, Rob, and Ole played at a bar with Axl and Izzy for a couple of shows?  Or do we fully give in to semantics and call them the classic lineup?

[D-GenerationX]

Can someone please post an interview where Tracii, Rob or Ole claimed to be founding members or claimed rights over anything GN?R related stuff?

Obviously not.  But I never got the impression it was about that.

The people that bring it up seem to be attempting to establish some phony relativism.  In other words, if you bring up the sheer volume of personnel changes from 1998 onwards, you are told its same as it ever was.  Why...Slash wasn't even the original guitarist, don'cha know?

While that fact is not in dispute, its application to modern day is a stretch, to put it mildly.  As if someone leaving and being replaced by someone else before any of us have ever heard of them is right on par with Axl replacing the entire band one they become worldwide global rock icons.

Who's buying that rationale?  Not many, I suspect.  Certainly not me.

[sky dog]

I have to agree with Ginger and D-Gen...the Tracii, Ole shit kinda bugs me too. Drop it already. 3 or so shows...who knows if they even got paid! 

[JAEBALL]

Can someone please post an interview where Tracii, Rob or Ole claimed to be founding members or claimed rights over anything GN?R related stuff?

Obviously not.  But I never got the impression it was about that.

The people that bring it up seem to be attempting to establish some phony relativism.  In other words, if you bring up the sheer volume of personnel changes from 1998 onwards, you are told its same as it ever was.  Why...Slash wasn't even the original guitarist, don'cha know?

While that fact is not in dispute, its application to modern day is a stretch, to put it mildly.  As if someone leaving and being replaced by someone else before any of us have ever heard of them is right on par with Axl replacing the entire band one they become worldwide global rock icons.

Who's buying that rationale?  Not many, I suspect.  Certainly not me.

Yup.. I'm with you on this one.

Not much more to add. Axl and Traci came up with the name Guns N Roses... it was just a name... a band name... they didn't do anything with it to that point. They were not an existing band... Slash and Steven and Duff didn't copy their parts on any pre existing songs...did they?

The Appetite lineup created the SONGS that made this band .. who created the name...doesn't matter too much.

Any discussion involving the band name and facts about who is in it what it means, and legally speaking...it's all meaningless.

In 75 years when we are all long gone, who are rock historians( if anybody even cares then) going to talk about? Traci, Dj Ashba, Bumblefoot, Brain, Buckethead? Take your pick of any these people... None of them will ever get mentioned in relation to Guns N Roses. For a laundry list of reasons.

[sky dog]

well, be fair to Bucket and Brain and all the guys who wrote the CD era songs....they have songwriting credits on a Gnr album.