Coma16 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Remember when you tried to convince everyone that you were a fan of Guns N' Roses a few months ago? What happened? Did Fernando cut you off?Deflection is a form of fear. Do you still wet your bed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trqster Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 It's pretty much basic common sense, the last time Gn'R toured with founding members was indeed in 1993.Let's be honest here, a band that had 5 founding members and now has a single one, can it still be considered the same band? Not in my book... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnR Chris Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Matt Sorum is the worst member ever in gnr history.That would be Dizzy, or could we call Dizzy the most superfluous member in Gn'R history? Shit, that might be Pittman, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr420 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) So then the last time gnr toured wasnt 1993. Izzy wasnt there, steven wasnt there. Matt and gilby were living off the work of other musicians. What dicks. Edited July 9, 2013 by tr420 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coma16 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 So then the last time gnr toured wasnt 1993. Izzy wasnt there, steven wasnt there. Matt and gilby were living off the work of other musicians. What dicks.Shhhh you might upset someone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaeryen Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) I simply do not accept or understand that this shit hasn't been locked yet and/or moved to an appropriate desolate quiet section, where it obviously by default belongs.Moderators, please do your job. Edited July 9, 2013 by phaeryen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) It's pretty much basic common sense, the last time Gn'R toured with founding members was indeed in 1993.But having more than one founding member isn't required for a band to keep its name. Edited July 9, 2013 by SoulMonster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trqster Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 It's pretty much basic common sense, the last time Gn'R toured with founding members was indeed in 1993.But having more than one founding member isn't required for a band to keep its name.Legally surely not, but morally imo yes it is. Especially true knowing about Gn'R history and all that those guys went through together before reaching success (as in Slash's book). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volcano62 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 So then the last time gnr toured wasnt 1993. Izzy wasnt there, steven wasnt there. Matt and gilby were living off the work of other musicians. What dicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 It's pretty much basic common sense, the last time Gn'R toured with founding members was indeed in 1993.But having more than one founding member isn't required for a band to keep its name.Legally surely not, but morally imo yes it is. Especially true knowing about Gn'R history and all that those guys went through together before reaching success (as in Slash's book). But even if you were able to argue that it was amoral of Axl to continue with the name when others left, that still wouldn't mean that this amoral action of his rendered the band name void.The band was founded by Axl Rose and Tracii Guns. Except for the short-lived original lineup, every band member through-out the band's history has been a substitute or an addition. You might argue that it was amoral of Axl and the other band members to continue with GN'R when Tracii left, you might argue it was amoral of Axl and the band members to continue with GN'R when the original lineup completely disintegrated, you might argue that it was amoral of Axl and band members to continue with GN'R when the successful AFD lineup ended with Steven leaving, you might argue that it was amoral of Axl and the band members to continue with GN'R when the last founding member (Izzy) left, you might argue that it was amoral of Axl and the band members to continue with the band when the last of the AFD lineup left (Duff), and you might argue that it was amoral of Axl and the band members to continue with GN'R when any other of the substitutes left...BUT there is no logic that any such amoral activity would take away the band name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trqster Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 All that matters at the end of the day and will go down in rock history are the classic rock songs created by the AFD lineup that were btw all 'real' band members of Guns n'Roses. music speaks for itself. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 All that matters at the end of the day and will go down in rock history are the classic rock songs created by the AFD lineup that were btw all 'real' band members of Guns n'Roses. music speaks for itself. Simple as that. Personal taste in regards to the music shouldn't have any bearings on whether we should refer to a band by the name it calls itself. I am the first to say that AFD is by far the greatest piece of music released by GN'R, and also that the band will never match the magic of the AFD lineup, still I realize that these opinion doesn't affect the name of the band whatsoever. If we were to have one name for bands whose lineups we enjoyed and other names for other lineups, it would be a total mess. A name is supposed to be constant across the board for simplicity. And if we were of the conviction that only the band during its heyday is allowed to be called GN'R because we are bitter about what happened afterwards, what are we then supposed to call the band before the good times? We might lump together all the various lineups after the period we personalle liked the most as "nuGNR", but should the lineups previous to this be "proto-GN'R" and do we extend this highly arbitrary system of band naming to all bands or just for some reason to GN'R?It is just a name. I understand people might not like what has happened. I understand people might be provoked and hurt by what has transpired. I understand that people may be very emotionally attached to their idea of what GN'R should have been and was. But this doesn't automagically endow anyone with the freedom to change the name of the band to suit their tastes. And even if people could do this, it wouldn't really change anything. It is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trqster Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Sure, that's why I call Gn'R to the AFD/UYI lineups and nuGn'R to the the most recent lineups - they're still both Gn'R to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Sure, that's why I call Gn'R to the AFD/UYI lineups and nuGn'R to the the most recent lineups - they're still both Gn'R to me. Yeah, with such a chequered history we have to have some way of differentiating. I typically try to refer to the lineup of a particular year or release, like the 2002 lineup or the AFD lineup. I find that most precise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volcano62 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Sure, that's why I call Gn'R to the AFD/UYI lineups and nuGn'R to the the most recent lineups - they're still both Gn'R to me. Yeah, with such a chequered history we have to have some way of differentiating. I typically try to refer to the lineup of a particular year or release, like the 2002 lineup or the AFD lineup. I find that most precise.I liked Axl's way of differencing it.Current band is Guns N' Roses and before was old guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lim666 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 but aint "a band" do something like recording and releasing things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 but aint "a band" do something like recording and releasing things?No, it is enough to play together (basically a "band" is a group of musicians playing together, recording and releasing is not required). Otherwise every band who hasn't recorded and released something wouldn't be a "band" and that isn't fair to all the aspiring groups of musicians around the world who has just started their careers.Besides, except for Dj who is a recent addition to the lineup, this band did record and release just a few years back. Surely a band doesn't seize to be a band in-between releases and lineup changes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lim666 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 but a "professional" band normally would do that, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dariablue Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Matt was right. See my signature for reference of Guns N' Roses last show. It's been 20 years, I miss them!You were what, four then? And you miss them? What does my age have to do with the last time real Guns performed? or the time I became a fan of real Guns? God forbid young people discovering Guns at this very moment.You're kind of missing the hilarity of your original post. I don't care when you became a GNR fan (although I'm willing to bet it wasn't at the age of four) or what incarnation of the band you like, it was you saying you missed then being that you were four at the time that's amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Matt was right. See my signature for reference of Guns N' Roses last show. It's been 20 years, I miss them!You were what, four then? And you miss them? What does my age have to do with the last time real Guns performed? or the time I became a fan of real Guns? God forbid young people discovering Guns at this very moment.You're kind of missing the hilarity of your original post. I don't care when you became a GNR fan (although I'm willing to bet it wasn't at the age of four) or what incarnation of the band you like, it was you saying you missed then being that you were four at the time that's amusing.And you're kind of seeing things where you shouldn't or are you trying to force an "amusing" or "hilarious" situation where there's none? Like I said, my age does not have anything to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts