Izzy's "demotion"

[carmiedisco12]

Yes, I admit. My agenda is to stick to facts....


/jarmo

Well it all depends on your definition of original I guess.  Just like a definition of a 'band'. That is another boring topic fuelled by agendas.

Original could be the first people in a particular position no matter how short lived or it could be the first group of people to actually create under the name. I think both are valid therefore the argument holds little validity.

[CherryGarcia]

Yes, I admit. My agenda is to stick to facts....


/jarmo

Well it all depends on your definition of original I guess.  Just like a definition of a 'band'. That is another boring topic fuelled by agendas.

Original could be the first people in a particular position no matter how short lived or it could be the first group of people to actually create under the name. I think both are valid therefore the argument holds little validity.

If you think Slash and Duff were at all important in GN'R's history - you hate Axl and aren't a real fan. You can either like Slash, or you can follow the truth and the light and follow Axl - there's no midway point. Axl's never done anything wrong, ever. And Slash has always been wrong.
Slash and Duff were just replacements. Guns would've been as big - if not bigger with Tracii - without the egos and musical myopia of Slash and Duff holding Axl back even in 1987. True facts.

[carmiedisco12]

Yes, I admit. My agenda is to stick to facts....


/jarmo

Well it all depends on your definition of original I guess.  Just like a definition of a 'band'. That is another boring topic fuelled by agendas.

Original could be the first people in a particular position no matter how short lived or it could be the first group of people to actually create under the name. I think both are valid therefore the argument holds little validity. I probably slightly side with the AFD being 'original' as I would view the first guys as like a draft copy before the first print but you know the argument that the AFD line up technically isn't the original band holds water too.

[EmilyGNR]

Yes, I admit. My agenda is to stick to facts....


/jarmo

Well it all depends on your definition of original I guess.  Just like a definition of a 'band'. That is another boring topic fuelled by agendas.

Original could be the first people in a particular position no matter how short lived or it could be the first group of people to actually create under the name. I think both are valid therefore the argument holds little validity.

If you think Slash and Duff were at all important in GN'R's history - you hate Axl and aren't a real fan. You can either like Slash, or you can follow the truth and the light and follow Axl - there's no midway point. Axl's never done anything wrong, ever. And Slash has always been wrong.
Slash and Duff were just replacements. Guns would've been as big - if not bigger with Tracii - without the egos and musical myopia of Slash and Duff holding Axl back even in 1987. True facts.

What do you get out of blatantly trolling this board? Some sick satisfaction?

Facts are that GNR was formed with Axl, Izzy, Ole, Rob and Tracii, it didn't last long and wasn't successful but it is a fact and remains a fact even if it upsets some.

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/history/index.html
Read em' and weep

[CherryGarcia]

Yes, I admit. My agenda is to stick to facts....


/jarmo

Well it all depends on your definition of original I guess.  Just like a definition of a 'band'. That is another boring topic fuelled by agendas.

Original could be the first people in a particular position no matter how short lived or it could be the first group of people to actually create under the name. I think both are valid therefore the argument holds little validity.

If you think Slash and Duff were at all important in GN'R's history - you hate Axl and aren't a real fan. You can either like Slash, or you can follow the truth and the light and follow Axl - there's no midway point. Axl's never done anything wrong, ever. And Slash has always been wrong.
Slash and Duff were just replacements. Guns would've been as big - if not bigger with Tracii - without the egos and musical myopia of Slash and Duff holding Axl back even in 1987. True facts.

What do you get out of blatantly trolling this board? Some sick satisfaction?

Facts are that GNR was formed with Axl, Izzy, Ole, Rob and Tracii, it didn't last long and wasn't successful but it is a fact and remains a fact even if it upsets some.

That post is called sarcasm. Sarcasm =/= trolling. I know that, in your eyes, everyone who doesn't tow the line 1000% = a troll and a hater, but let me explain something:
I have every single Guns N' Roses album. Yes, including Chinese Democracy.
I've been to the shows on several occasions when life circumstances and money permitted.
My personal preference is the Use Your Illusion albums and era, but I like all eras. I still have my VHS tape of the 2002 VMA's performance.

Just because someone holds different opinions from you doesn't make them a fake fan or a troll.

Okay, but why does the fact that GNR was at its most successful and relevant when the band had Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy upset others - even though it's also a fact? We all have our facts. I don't get off on belittling GN'R members. You do.

[EmilyGNR]

Axl securing the rights to the name of the " band he started with Izzy" has nothing to do with then having Slash and Duff sign contracts to be his employees.

I see them as seperate issues, he could have secured ownership of the name without taking it there.

For the last time ... If he wanted to forge ahead with them like he claimed ... Then that was foolish and naive to believe they'd go along.

It's foolish to be discussing a 20+ year old issue that probably happened when you were in diapers, or were sperm but it doesn't stop you, does it ?

Nothing said now will change a thing in the past, but people want to keep on beating that deceased equine because it didn't happen the way they thought it should.

for god's sake, stop it already. you are the most insulting and derogative person on this board and keep complainig about others being insulting. comments like "that's what idots say" (I'm paraphraising) and your sperm-comment are what some may call passive aggressiveness. I just don't get why you are allowed to do that?!

Okay, what age were you in 1995-6?

If you weren't born nor in the oven you were most likely still sperm. It's not derogatory, it is a biological fact.

Did you not know that?

[EmilyGNR]

Yes, I admit. My agenda is to stick to facts....


/jarmo

Well it all depends on your definition of original I guess.  Just like a definition of a 'band'. That is another boring topic fuelled by agendas.

Original could be the first people in a particular position no matter how short lived or it could be the first group of people to actually create under the name. I think both are valid therefore the argument holds little validity.

If you think Slash and Duff were at all important in GN'R's history - you hate Axl and aren't a real fan. You can either like Slash, or you can follow the truth and the light and follow Axl - there's no midway point. Axl's never done anything wrong, ever. And Slash has always been wrong.
Slash and Duff were just replacements. Guns would've been as big - if not bigger with Tracii - without the egos and musical myopia of Slash and Duff holding Axl back even in 1987. True facts.

What do you get out of blatantly trolling this board? Some sick satisfaction?

Facts are that GNR was formed with Axl, Izzy, Ole, Rob and Tracii, it didn't last long and wasn't successful but it is a fact and remains a fact even if it upsets some.

That post is called sarcasm. Sarcasm =/= trolling. I know that, in your eyes, everyone who doesn't tow the line 1000% = a troll and a hater, but let me explain something:
I have every single Guns N' Roses album. Yes, including Chinese Democracy.
I've been to the shows on several occasions when life circumstances and money permitted.
My personal preference is the Use Your Illusion albums and era, but I like all eras. I still have my VHS tape of the 2002 VMA's performance.

Just because someone holds different opinions from you doesn't make them a fake fan or a troll.

Okay, but why does the fact that GNR was at its most successful and relevant when the band had Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy upset others - even though it's also a fact? We all have our facts. I don't get off on belittling GN'R members. You do.

You were trolling the board, you are not amusing at all nor entertaining, you are annoying.

I'd much rather debate with DGenX 

How is it belittling a GNR member to mention the actual history of the band? Explain that.

Nobody here said the original band was successful, or made more money than the appetite or illusion lineups.

I don't honestly care how you try and justify your nerd rage.

[Ringoturtle]

Axl securing the rights to the name of the " band he started with Izzy" has nothing to do with then having Slash and Duff sign contracts to be his employees.

I see them as seperate issues, he could have secured ownership of the name without taking it there.

For the last time ... If he wanted to forge ahead with them like he claimed ... Then that was foolish and naive to believe they'd go along.

It's foolish to be discussing a 20+ year old issue that probably happened when you were in diapers, or were sperm but it doesn't stop you, does it ?

Nothing said now will change a thing in the past, but people want to keep on beating that deceased equine because it didn't happen the way they thought it should.

for god's sake, stop it already. you are the most insulting and derogative person on this board and keep complainig about others being insulting. comments like "that's what idots say" (I'm paraphraising) and your sperm-comment are what some may call passive aggressiveness. I just don't get why you are allowed to do that?!

Okay, what age were you in 1995-6?

If you weren't born nor in the oven you were most likely still sperm. It's not derogatory, it is a biological fact.

Did you not know that?

sidenote:
in 1995 I was going to school. already back then I had more manners than you in your forties because my parents were good ones. plus, I was not THAT self-indulgent and ignorant.

your sole intention is to belittle and to insult your discussion partner. that's a fact and you know it, but you're not being honest about it. sad.

EmilyRose: "these kinda arguments are always brought up by stupid people. but hey, I didn't call you stupid..."

ridiculous.

for now, I spend enough time talking to you. I'll come back and talk to you when I feel so. but it's the best to ignore you and I think that works pretty well for a lot of Users on this forum.

[jarmo]

You can start a car without windshield wipers, but they're not important ingredients to go forward.
Slash and Duff were. Or are you going to deny that Slash and Duff were important to Guns N' Roses' success?

I don't really know what's wrong with you.
You keep saying things like this that make you look ignorant. Did I deny it? Did I make any claims regarding that line up and their success?
Please stop trying to read between the lines and focus on reading the words on the screen instead.

If you're just trolling, you better bring it down a notch.

Does it bother you that new GN'R will never be as successful as Slash and Duff era Guns was?

No, it doesn't. Why can't you answer my question why it bothers you that GN'R's history isn't as you hope it was?
It seems to upset you to the point that you spend days and days going on and on about how important Slash and Duff were.

While nobody claimed the opposite! Fucking priceless. 

Original could be the first people in a particular position no matter how short lived or it could be the first group of people to actually create under the name. I think both are valid therefore the argument holds little validity. I probably slightly side with the AFD being 'original' as I would view the first guys as like a draft copy before the first print but you know the argument that the AFD line up technically isn't the original band holds water too.

The issue some people have is that to them original means the ones who made the band famous.

But, when you're on a fan site with fans arguing that the band's history is not important and certain people who, according to the definition of the word, were original members weren't, you're wondering what their motives are and what the point is?

Like I said, I don't really care what was more popular than what. It's not an issue to me. I'm interested in the correct picture of events that happened. It's called history.
Of course you've got these troll faces who'll tell you that that's only because I support the current band. But for some odd reason, they can't tell you why I've maintained a timeline of the band's history on this site for about 19 years now.... Something that existed before this so called "new band" played their first note together....




/jarmo

[JAEBALL]

My issue with it... is that you guys are so hung up on the name and not the entity..

Same thing with the evolution of "Guns N Roses" ... GNR didn't evolve ... it completely changed.. there's a big difference. It just used the same band name on the concert tickets. Axl... he evolved his sound... the band...they left...and then the band that changed the sound... they left too ! (which is truly unfortunate)


Let me re phrase... I don't have an issue with it, I could care less what a handful of you think about what the "original" band consisted of. I just don't understand why the name of the band seems to be so confusing. It's all moot doe.

[jarmo]

Looks like you associate Guns N' Roses with certain people. That's it.
So Guns N' Roses can't evolve because 4/5 of the people were fired or quit.

Some have an emotional attachment to a specific line up, and then that's the only one that matters to them.

To me, GN'R has kept evolving, changing or whatever you wanna call it since 1985. The first big change was when Tracii, Ole and Rob were gone. The next one was Steven getting the boot and then Izzy leaving and so on.... Now, let's see how this gets twisted into me hating the old band!



/jarmo

[sky dog]

For the record, Duff's importance to Gnr is WAY WAY WAY overblown amongst us hardcores. Izzy seems to always be tossed to the side and it is simply mind boggling to me. Axl and Izzy started Guns N' Roses....simple as that. Axl and Izzy have the lion's share of songwriting credits as well....by a long shot. Just saying. Suck it!

[norway]

It seems to upset you to the point that you spend days and days going on and on about how important Slash and Duff were.

While nobody claimed the opposite! Fucking priceless. 

Is Duff on the same level as Nikki Sixx and Gene Simmons in terms of relevance?

PS, nonono, Duff ftw, honest question

[JAEBALL]

Looks like you associate Guns N' Roses with certain people. That's it.
So Guns N' Roses can't evolve because 4/5 of the people were fired or quit.

Some have an emotional attachment to a specific line up, and then that's the only one that matters to them.

To me, GN'R has kept evolving, changing or whatever you wanna call it since 1985. The first big change was when Tracii, Ole and Rob were gone. The next one was Steven getting the boot and then Izzy leaving and so on.... Now, let's see how this gets twisted into me hating the old band!



/jarmo

Never said or thought you hated any version of the band.

[norway]

I agree with kim jung eel (jarmo) our glorious leader, facts doesn't take anything from the afd-lineup.

[jarmo]

Never said or thought you hated any version of the band.

It wasn't aimed at you. Sorry if that wasn't clear.


There's certain posters who'll take any comment I make as some kind of shot aimed at the old band.

Oops, I said aimed. It means I hate the AFD line up!
Ooops again, I said I. It means there's no love for the Use Your Illusion line up either.

 


/jarmo

[TheBaconman]

I think there were two evolutions of guns n roses

You have the original one up until 1995

Then you have the version that Axl started over again.  Once he quit the original

[sky dog]

the second version of Gnr started in 1991 when Izzy left....

[EmilyGNR]

Axl securing the rights to the name of the " band he started with Izzy" has nothing to do with then having Slash and Duff sign contracts to be his employees.

I see them as seperate issues, he could have secured ownership of the name without taking it there.

For the last time ... If he wanted to forge ahead with them like he claimed ... Then that was foolish and naive to believe they'd go along.

It's foolish to be discussing a 20+ year old issue that probably happened when you were in diapers, or were sperm but it doesn't stop you, does it ?

Nothing said now will change a thing in the past, but people want to keep on beating that deceased equine because it didn't happen the way they thought it should.

for god's sake, stop it already. you are the most insulting and derogative person on this board and keep complainig about others being insulting. comments like "that's what idots say" (I'm paraphraising) and your sperm-comment are what some may call passive aggressiveness. I just don't get why you are allowed to do that?!

Okay, what age were you in 1995-6?

If you weren't born nor in the oven you were most likely still sperm. It's not derogatory, it is a biological fact.

Did you not know that?

sidenote:
in 1995 I was going to school. already back then I had more manners than you in your forties because my parents were good ones. plus, I was not THAT self-indulgent and ignorant.

your sole intention is to belittle and to insult your discussion partner. that's a fact and you know it, but you're not being honest about it. sad.

EmilyRose: "these kinda arguments are always brought up by stupid people. but hey, I didn't call you stupid..."

ridiculous.

for now, I spend enough time talking to you. I'll come back and talk to you when I feel so. but it's the best to ignore you and I think that works pretty well for a lot of Users on this forum.

Super! That works great for me.

And since you seem to have overlooked this in your little zealous campaign, the original comment was directed at Jaeball.

Only stupid people would confuse that, but Hey, I didn't call you stupid. 

[EmilyGNR]

I think there were two evolutions of guns n roses

You have the original one up until 1995

Then you have the version that Axl started over again.  Once he quit the original

No, the original lineup did not last until 1995.

This might come in handy for you
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/history/index.html

Disclaimer: By knowing and acknowledging the actual history of GNR does not in any way mean I dislike,or discredit any member of any lineup.