How do you decide what is GNR and what isn't? What makes something more GNR than something else?

[Lies They Tell]

This is GNR as much as Paul McCartney's backing band are The Beatles.

If you accept these hacks as GNR, then you have to accept The Beatles are still touring...

If Paul McCartney would actually call his band The Beatles, then yes, The Beatles would be still touring. IMO it wouldn't be as good as the classic Beatles, but it would still be The Beatles cause it's called The Beatles.

Likewise the current GNR isn't really as good as the classic GNR, but IMO it's still pretty fucking good and better than most bands out there. So yeah, I still love GNR. Both the new and the old versions.

[wasted]

CD tours similar to UYI tour i saw. But before or just after is the real GNR of folklore. 91 UYI come out, its not GNR.

[Definite_Maybe]

If Paul McCartney would actually call his band The Beatles, then yes, The Beatles would be still touring. IMO it wouldn't be as good as the classic Beatles, but it would still be The Beatles cause it's called The Beatles.

This is GNR as much as Paul McCartney's backing band are The Beatles.

If you accept these hacks as GNR, then you have to accept The Beatles are still touring...

Likewise the current GNR isn't really as good as the classic GNR, but IMO it's still pretty fucking good and better than most bands out there. So yeah, I still love GNR. Both the new and the old versions.

If you drank a Coke can full of urine and convinced yourself it was Coke you were drinking (because the can label read "Coke") it still wouldn't change the fact you're drinking urine.

If you would want to delude yourself that McCartney with a bunch of session players would be The Beatles, then I don't think it's worthwhile arguing that GNR with it's 50 replacements of replacements are worthy to be billed as GNR.

[SoulMonster]

?

In you personal opinion, that is. I'm looking for individual views.

I sort of go with what the band calls itself and whether that is contested or not. If the band calls itself something then who I am to challenge that?

[Lies They Tell]

If Paul McCartney would actually call his band The Beatles, then yes, The Beatles would be still touring. IMO it wouldn't be as good as the classic Beatles, but it would still be The Beatles cause it's called The Beatles.

This is GNR as much as Paul McCartney's backing band are The Beatles.

If you accept these hacks as GNR, then you have to accept The Beatles are still touring...

Likewise the current GNR isn't really as good as the classic GNR, but IMO it's still pretty fucking good and better than most bands out there. So yeah, I still love GNR. Both the new and the old versions.

If you drank a Coke can full of urine and convinced yourself it was Coke you were drinking (because the can label read "Coke") it still wouldn't change the fact you're drinking urine.

If you would want to delude yourself that McCartney with a bunch of session players would be The Beatles, then I don't think it's worthwhile arguing that GNR with it's 50 replacements of replacements are worthy to be billed as GNR.

Don't people like you ever get tired of trolling? I don't care if something is worthy of being called something or not. I only care about what something is actually called. If McCartney's band would be called The Beatles, then I would call it The Beatles.

If I'd drink a can full of urine, I wouldn't try to convince myself that it's coke. But if the Coca Cola company was actually selling Coke cans full of urine, then I would call those cans of urine Coca Cola, because that would be the official name of the drink.

See the difference.?

I call things with their official names. Like it or not Axl's band is called Guns N' Roses. If you think otherwise, then you're the deluded one.

[trqster]

Gn'R is AFD, Lies, UYI & TSI. NuGn'R or Axl's band is CD.

[WhazUp]

But if the Coca Cola company was actually selling Coke cans full of urine, then I would call those cans of urine Coca Cola, because that would be the official name of the drink.

See the difference.?

I call things with their official names. Like it or not Axl's band is called Guns N' Roses. If you think otherwise, then you're the deluded one.

But to me that only goes to show that in this context "official names" are bullshit as a concept of differentiating things, be it Coke and urine or an old band with a new one.

Because if they did sell said cans with urine and called it Coke, it still shares no taste or flavor with Coke the drink that we all know. Meaning what you call it is irrelevant because it is inherently different - so calling it Coke may be the legal term but everybody and their brother knows that all they are drinking is a bottle of piss - not the carbonated drink that they knew and loved.

Now I do quite like the current band and all - but to me they are inherently a different entity. What you call them is one of the more irrelevant facts of all of this because what I am seeing and hearing is all I need to know

Edited October 8, 2013 by WhazUp

[Coma16]

Steve Harvey is the host of Family Feud. It is still Family Feud.

[Lies They Tell]

But if the Coca Cola company was actually selling Coke cans full of urine, then I would call those cans of urine Coca Cola, because that would be the official name of the drink.

See the difference.?

I call things with their official names. Like it or not Axl's band is called Guns N' Roses. If you think otherwise, then you're the deluded one.

But to me that only goes to show that in this context "official names" are bullshit as a concept of differentiating things, be it Coke and urine or an old band with a new one.

Because if they did sell said cans with urine and called it Coke, it still shares no taste or flavor with Coke the drink that we all know. Meaning what you call it is irrelevant because it is inherently different - so calling it Coke may be the legal term but everybody and their brother knows that all they are drinking is a bottle of piss - not the carbonated drink that they knew and loved.

Now I do quite like the current band and all - but to me they are inherently a different entity. What you call them is one of the more irrelevant facts of all of this because what I am seeing and hearing is all I need to know

I understand why some people freak out about Axl using the GNR name. I personally don't care. It's just a name. I'm not the one who decides what the name means. If the Coca Cola-company wants to call urine Coke, then it's their decision. I would have no problems saying that I used to like the old version of Coke but hate the new version. I woudn't be complaining that this is not coke cause I'm not the one who decides what Coke tastes like. It's Coca Cola-companys decision.

I'd just buy Pepsi instead.

[SoulMonster]

This is GNR as much as Paul McCartney's backing band are The Beatles.

If you accept these hacks as GNR, then you have to accept The Beatles are still touring...

No, because there is no band calling itself Beatles and being uncontested about it today.

Fact is that there is a band called Guns N' Roses today, which has been around since 1985 although evolved a lot. You can dislike the way the band has turned out as much as you want, you can dislike the music the band released in 2008, you can be bitter about your own personal band members not being with the band still, you can dislike the current members as much as you want, but none of these things gives you the right or power to re-name the band. It is called "Guns N' Roses" regardless of how much you dislike it, and the fact that people hate that so much and have such an obsessive need to try to argue why it can't be "Guns N' Roses" is absolutely hilarious. I almost hope that Axl leaves Guns N' Roses and that Dj makes it into some horrible emo light dance troupe just because of the kicks I would get from the responses here and member's inevitable apoplectic fits.

If we, the listeners, were given the power to rename bands according to our own subjective preferences, everything would be a mess. We can't do that. No matter what we think of a band and how it has turned out, that doesn't give us the right to alter its name.

I don't like how country X (let's call it that to prevent derailings) has turned out since the 18th century, but I have no intention of stating this opinion by childishly claiming that country X isn't country X any more. Country X is country X regardless of what I might feel about it. You have good periods of country X and bad periods of country X, just like you have good periods of GN'R and bad periods of GN'R. I am neither as egocentric or childish to believe I have the right to assign it any other name based on my own subjective feelings, nor do I expect other people to deny me my own name if I fail to live up to other people's expectations. People's problem with GN'R isn't typically the name, either, it is the lineup, the music, the lack of progression, etc, but for some reason they have problems arguing these things and take the lazy way out by reverting to attacking the name and not what they really don't like.

I realize that for some people the name has come to mean a certain quality. But this is wrong. It is not the name of the band that assures the quality, it is the band members and their skills and talents. The name itself can not possibly be a guarantee of quality because band members, even if they remain constant, will never remain as creatively gifted and skilled as they were. It's not the band name that creates the music, it is the band members. There is just no way a band can remain at a constant level of quality except if it disbands early on or if the band succeeds at recruiting new members to replace old ones as they burn out or fail to deliver. If a band exists over a long period of time it will inevitably go through phases of various quality regardless of who the members are.

Edited October 8, 2013 by SoulMonster

[gunnari]

This is GNR as much as Paul McCartney's backing band are The Beatles.

If you accept these hacks as GNR, then you have to accept The Beatles are still touring...

No, because there is no band calling itself Beatles and being uncontested about it today.

Fact is that there is a band called Guns N' Roses today, which has been around since 1985 although evolved a lot. You can dislike the way the band has turned out as much as you want, you can dislike the music the band released in 2008, you can be bitter about your own personal band members not being with the band still, you can dislike the current members as much as you want, but none of these things gives you the right or power to re-name the band. It is called "Guns N' Roses" regardless of how much you dislike it, and the fact that people hate that so much and have such an obsessive need to try to argue why it can't be "Guns N' Roses" is absolutely hilarious. I almost hope that Axl leaves Guns N' Roses and that Dj makes it into some horrible emo light dance troupe just because of the kicks I would get from the responses here and member's inevitable apoplectic fits.

If we, the listeners, were given the power to rename bands according to our own subjective preferences, everything would be a mess. We can't do that. No matter what we think of a band and how it has turned out, that doesn't give us the right to alter its name.

I don't like how country X (let's call it that to prevent derailings) has turned out since the 18th century, but I have no intention of stating this opinion by childishly claiming that country X isn't country X any more. Country X is country X regardless of what I might feel about it. You have good periods of country X and bad periods of country X, just like you have good periods of GN'R and bad periods of GN'R. I am neither as egocentric or childish to believe I have the right to assign it any other name based on my own subjective feelings, nor do I expect other people to deny me my own name if I fail to live up to other people's expectations. People's problem with GN'R isn't typically the name, either, it is the lineup, the music, the lack of progression, etc, but for some reason they have problems arguing these things and take the lazy way out by reverting to attacking the name and not what they really don't like.

I realize that for some people the name has come to mean a certain quality. But this is wrong. It is not the name of the band that assures the quality, it is the band members and their skills and talents. The name itself can not possibly be a guarantee of quality because band members, even if they remain constant, will never remain as creatively gifted and skilled as they were. It's not the band name that creates the music, it is the band members. There is just no way a band can remain at a constant level of quality except if it disbands early on or if the band succeeds at recruiting new members to replace old ones as they burn out or fail to deliver. If a band exists over a long period of time it will inevitably go through phases of various quality regardless of who the members are.

SoulMonster what is your opinion of GnR today and how it has evolved?

[username]

?

In you personal opinion, that is. I'm looking for individual views.

Personal reality doesn't matter. What matters is what is released under the GnR name. Whether you like it or not, that's Guns n' Roses. You can like different shapes and era's of the band, but it's still what Guns n' Roses evolved into.

[SoulMonster]

SoulMonster what is your opinion of GnR today and how it has evolved?

For me AFD will always be special. I discovered that record when I was 12 years and it really made an impact on me and formed me as a music listeners for the rest of my life (I remember having to choose between AFD and some silly Europ pop record in the music store and went for AFD based on the original artwork ). It was the soundtrack to my life in that period of my life - it mattered to me as only music can matter to young guys. Nothing GN'R has done after AFD, or will ever do, or what any other band will ever do, can ever rival what AFD means to me personally. It goes way beyond the musical quality. Life memories and the music goes hand in hand. It has become a part of my past just like other cherished memories.

I started disapproving of GN'R already in the early 90s because I felt the rawness of AFD was diluted and the band became a caricature of themselves. They branched out too much. They lost their identity. And since then it has mostly gone downhill. I do appreciate the fact that GN'R is still around, though, because there were some god music on CD that I might not have heard if GN'R has been dissolved. It will never match up to AFD, in my humble opinion, but it is still a lot better than nothing. I naturally do hope and believe for even more new music in the future but I always go back to AFD, not only for the music but to revisit a period of my life.

[magisme]

?

In you personal opinion, that is. I'm looking for individual views.

Personal reality doesn't matter. What matters is what is released under the GnR name. Whether you like it or not, that's Guns n' Roses. You can like different shapes and era's of the band, but it's still what Guns n' Roses evolved into.

I feel the exact opposite. To me, it doesn't matter what Axl calls GNR. GNR has certain meanings and associations for me - which coincide with the views of most of the general public btw - and the fact that the album cover of CD and the legal papers call Axl's band GNR holds no water in my book. People can yell and scream that THIS IS GNR, but I don't care. It's not. And there's nothing Axl can do to convince me or most other people who think of actual GNR when they hear the band's name.

[wasted]

Since Illisions I think there needs to be epics. Then there needs to be a big rocker with a riff, a punk song, acoustic sound also good. Need blues solos too.

Cloned in the fires of CastleAxl CD 2 will be the ultimate GNR album.

[SoulMonster]

I feel the exact opposite. To me, it doesn't matter what Axl calls GNR. GNR has certain meanings and associations for me - which coincide with the views of most of the general public btw - and the fact that the album cover of CD and the legal papers call Axl's band GNR holds no water in my book. People can yell and scream that THIS IS GNR, but I don't care. It's not. And there's nothing Axl can do to convince me or most other people who think of actual GNR when they hear the band's name.

Personal reality doesn't matter. What matters is what is released under the GnR name. Whether you like it or not, that's Guns n' Roses. You can like different shapes and era's of the band, but it's still what Guns n' Roses evolved into.

Being of the conviction that your highly subjective feelings towards an entity is sufficient for you to deny it its name, is rather fascinating to me.

[magisme]

Glad you're fascinated. You know I don't discuss things with you cuz I think you're a moron, so move along and completely misconstrue everything with someone else, please.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Based on what the name was built and brought into the public consciousness by. By the collective that did the achievements that the Guns n Roses name stands on i.e. the songs, the gigs that made Guns n Roses.

[wasted]

I almost see it like movies. GNR will release another action movie with an assemble cast. What if Izzy and Duff drop in to recording.

The current guys seem to have fun on tour so Im hoping the next record rocks harder and theres a few glam metal songs for the masses.

[SoulMonster]

I have come to the realization that magisme's posts have improved a lot in quality. I realize that this is just my own personal feelings and that others might feel otherwise. Still, fact is that I appreciate his posts a lot more than before. It is very hard for me to reconcile this shift in quality with the fact that he still calls himself "magisme". I can't accept that. He might formally be registered as "magisme" but I can never refer to him as "magisme" since that particular name is correlated with a specific expectation of quality in my subjective mind. From now on I will find some new name for him, and I encourage everyone else who has changed opinions on other members to also adopt my philosophy that it is our right to name others (not their right) and to decide upon new names for other members. Rest assure, we don't have to agree on the same names. It doesn't matter how confusing this might be nor how wrong the assumption is that a name is connected to quality, we should still cling to the notion that it is a right we have. After all, this is about us and our struggles with accepting change, and not about them.

Glad you're fascinated. You know I don't discuss things with you cuz I think you're a moron, so move along and completely misconstrue everything with someone else, please.

Good to have you back, magisme!

Edited October 8, 2013 by SoulMonster

[username]

?

In you personal opinion, that is. I'm looking for individual views.

Personal reality doesn't matter. What matters is what is released under the GnR name. Whether you like it or not, that's Guns n' Roses. You can like different shapes and era's of the band, but it's still what Guns n' Roses evolved into.

I feel the exact opposite. To me, it doesn't matter what Axl calls GNR. GNR has certain meanings and associations for me - which coincide with the views of most of the general public btw - and the fact that the album cover of CD and the legal papers call Axl's band GNR holds no water in my book. People can yell and scream that THIS IS GNR, but I don't care. It's not. And there's nothing Axl can do to convince me or most other people who think of actual GNR when they hear the band's name.

It's the difference between factual and emotional. I'll go with factual first, and emotional second. To me, it's GnR. Mostly because they jam a big fat GnR logo on it. That's the factual part. Axl owns the name, simpple as that. That being said, I dislike most things GnR has done and been since 1998.

[magisme]

SM

Poor understanding of the difference between "factual" and "emotional," username.

[username]

Not really. Look at a Guns n' Roses discography and CD will be in there. Whether you consider it "real" GnR (based on how you feel about what Axl's done with the band) is up to you though.

[Intercourse]

if Coca Cola put water into their cans and said "FUCK you, its Coca Cola to us!"

would you call it Coca Cola?

[SoulMonster]

if Coca Cola put water into their cans and said "FUCK you, its Coca Cola to us!"

would you call it Coca Cola?

I would probably say something like, "I've stopped drinking Coca Cola after they ruined it".