Guns N' Roses

[ShockTK]

I think they're trying to make up for Reading getting Metallica and Radiohead the last two years.

[mrtourette]

Unfortunately I doubt the organisers take our opinions into account when booking headliners, Metallica and Radiohead were the biggest draws of their respective years and Reading had them on the Sunday so I guess it's only fair Leeds get the plum closer this year.

[ShockTK]

Just don't throw bottles at the guy.

[Dermot]

"Axl will just be a tit", "GNR tribute band", "2 hours of karaoke", "No Slash, it will be shit".

[ShockTK]

I laughed my ass of at these

[VCK]

Famous Mani quote: "yeah when Man City win the European Cup"

Famous Bobby Gillespie quote: "you want the Stone Roses? Well you should have been here 15 yars ago, you lazy bastards"

I don't think The Stone Roses should reform, to be honest. If they did, I would hate to see them do it and become just another nostalgia act; shadows of their former selves. The same for a band like The Smiths. It would have to be the right moment; not just nostalgia for the sake of it, or attempting to recreate a time and a place.

The problem with those two bands (Mondays and Roses) is that they represented a time and a place when something was happening. People often look back and say "yeah that was a great time to be alive" and you know what? I was alive but I wasn't old enough to enjoy it like, say, a 40 year old would who was around in 1988 taking E in the Hacienda. "Great days", etc.

Yeah I love the music but I'll never get to experience what it was like to be there except through listening to old war stories and watching old dusty third hand VHS copies of live shows on YouTube.

It's like these 15 year olds who go and see The Sex Pistols NOW or buy their first Ramones album... it's great they listen, it's great they try to identify, but they'll never get it.

Edited March 30, 2010 by VCK

[ShockTK]

The Mondays, watching their recent live vids, seem like an almost different band to the Factory Record days. But the likes of Blink, RATM, Pearl Jam, Pixies, Pumpkins, etc...aren't they all more relevant to the 90s as well?

[scottt]

Id say if enough people want to see a band, theyre clearly pretty relevant.

[ShockTK]

Id say if enough people want to see a band, theyre clearly pretty relevant.

[she bangs the drums]

Oh dear lots of people should know better on this thread

As I said on threads last week bands continuing to play without members is all relevant to how important they were to the band.

If people on this thread are telling me that Slash was not important to the writing of the songs, the guitar riff, the solos then you really don't deserve to listen to G n R.

Axl was a great front man and on his day I am sure he still is, However you will be watching a band thats members Axl apart joined in 2005/06 and had no involvement in the writing of any of Guns n Roses great songs, they are pretty much session artists.

In 10 years time would you watch RATM without Tom Morello, Tim and Brad with just Zack de La Roche fronting a band with his mates???? I wouldn't

Would you watch The Stone Roses with just Ian Brown fronting with John Squire, Mani and Reni missing, I didn't after this happened and I wouldn't again.

Would there be a huge interest if the Libertines were making a come back with just Carl Barat??? would there f**k as like

Face the facts, Guns n Roses is just a brand name, you will not be watching Guns n Roses, just Axl and some friends playing songs that were written by other people and Axl. DJ Ashba is certainly no Slash.

It will probably be still good but for me if I watched them then it would be sacrilege to my memories of one of the greatest rock bands of all time.

I understand why many people will be watching them and I really hope you enjoy them. I will be in the Lock Up Stage hopefully watching Rancid, not original line up as the drummer left but Tim Armstrong, Lars Frederiksen and Matt Freeman are Rancid.

[lolbot]

Axl can't be worse than stroppy Caleb Followill last year!

This GNR performance will be as good as the crowd allows it to be. They sound and perform better than the Appetite For Destruction line-up could ever hope to today. Yes, technically it's an Axl Rose solo band, but that's still a more worthy headliner than the other two acts! I'm sure this line-up will still be touring after The Libertines and Blink-182 have spent all their reunion £millions.

[ShockTK]

If you listen to Velvet Revolver, it's just GNR without Axl.

If you listen to Guns n Roses, it's just Axl without Velvet Revolver.

Blah, blah, blah.

And yet nobody complains about Velvet Revolver. Why? Because they made kickass music. Why did they complain about GNR? Because they didn't release ANY music for years, and then when Chinese Democracy came out, it left the children confused because all they wanted was Sweet Child O' Mine on repeat, and then the bottles get thrown.

The only people who care are people who are too caked up and saturated in dusty nostalgia to see that the point of Guns n Roses was always about the attitude and the ambition. They watch Kerrang and see the guitar solo to Estranged and go "WOW! AMAZUHN! LOL!"... and yet, as they were doing that video, Slash was contemplating his next move asking, "f**king dolphins?"

Slash was always a great big part of Guns N Roses but the one reason he was sacked from the band was because he lacked the same ambition as Axl. That's not to say his decision was the wrong one, but he just wasn't prepared to play Axl's tune.

The other members of old GNR left because they didn't like the direction Axl was taking with a more contemporary Mainstream Industrial Metal sound of bands like Nine Inch Nails and Ministry post-Spaghetti Incident. It wasn't Rock n Roll. It was, instead, evolution. Axl's ambition with Chinese Democracy wasn't just to change the way GNR sounded but to change the way music itself sounded, and the other band members just didn't want to change.

Why shouldn't we support Axl's ambition? Because "it's just not Guns n Roses without Slash"? THe very definition of closed-mindedness.

[theramm]

In 10 years time would you watch RATM without Tom Morello, Tim and Brad with just Zack de La Roche fronting a band with his mates???? I wouldn't

Would you watch The Stone Roses with just Ian Brown fronting with John Squire, Mani and Reni missing, I didn't after this happened and I wouldn't again.

Edited March 30, 2010 by theramm

[Dermot]

Oh dear lots of people should know better on this thread

As I said on threads last week bands continuing to play without members is all relevant to how important they were to the band.

If people on this thread are telling me that Slash was not important to the writing of the songs, the guitar riff, the solos then you really don't deserve to listen to G n R.

Axl was a great front man and on his day I am sure he still is, However you will be watching a band thats members Axl apart joined in 2005/06 and had no involvement in the writing of any of Guns n Roses great songs, they are pretty much session artists.

In 10 years time would you watch RATM without Tom Morello, Tim and Brad with just Zack de La Roche fronting a band with his mates???? I wouldn't

Would you watch The Stone Roses with just Ian Brown fronting with John Squire, Mani and Reni missing, I didn't after this happened and I wouldn't again.

Would there be a huge interest if the Libertines were making a come back with just Carl Barat??? would there f**k as like

Face the facts, Guns n Roses is just a brand name, you will not be watching Guns n Roses, just Axl and some friends playing songs that were written by other people and Axl. DJ Ashba is certainly no Slash.

It will probably be still good but for me if I watched them then it would be sacrilege to my memories of one of the greatest rock bands of all time.

I understand why many people will be watching them and I really hope you enjoy them. I will be in the Lock Up Stage hopefully watching Rancid, not original line up as the drummer left but Tim Armstrong, Lars Frederiksen and Matt Freeman are Rancid.

[she bangs the drums]

If you listen to Velvet Revolver, it's just GNR without Axl.

If you listen to Guns n Roses, it's just Axl without Velvet Revolver.

Blah, blah, blah.

And yet nobody complains about Velvet Revolver. Why? Because they made kickass music. Why did they complain about GNR? Because they didn't release ANY music for years, and then when Chinese Democracy came out, it left the children confused because all they wanted was Sweet Child O' Mine on repeat, and then the bottles get thrown.

The only people who care are people who are too caked up and saturated in dusty nostalgia to see that the point of Guns n Roses was always about the attitude and the ambition. They watch Kerrang and see the guitar solo to Estranged and go "WOW! AMAZUHN! LOL!"... and yet, as they were doing that video, Slash was contemplating his next move asking, "f**king dolphins?"

Slash was always a great big part of Guns N Roses but the one reason he was sacked from the band was because he lacked the same ambition as Axl. That's not to say his decision was the wrong one, but he just wasn't prepared to play Axl's tune.

The other members of old GNR left because they didn't like the direction Axl was taking with a more contemporary Mainstream Industrial Metal sound of bands like Nine Inch Nails and Ministry post-Spaghetti Incident. It wasn't Rock n Roll. It was, instead, evolution. Axl's ambition with Chinese Democracy wasn't just to change the way GNR sounded but to change the way music itself sounded, and the other band members just didn't want to change.

Why shouldn't we support Axl's ambition? Because "it's just not Guns n Roses without Slash"? THe very definition of closed-mindedness.

[she bangs the drums]

No-one's saying that this years GnR performance will match the spectacle of seeing the original line-up or that Slash's solo's weren't a massive part of their appeal/success. We know the reasons why we wont see the UYI line-up again but saying there's some rule or formula about the importance of the missing band members is a bit much.

Bon Scott was a massively important band member, should AC/DC have carried on under another name? Deep Purple without Ritchie Blackmoor? It's a long list, especially for bands with long careers.

No-one's been sold tickets on the premise that it would be Slash & Duff. Shit, 2 weeks ago we thought it was My Chemical f**king Romance.

All I know is that I'll have had about 12 pints by the time they come on & I want to sing along live with Axl. If we get the same into as these guys did recently it should get things off to a good start -

Edited March 30, 2010 by she bangs the drums

[ShockTK]

no it isnt because Axl was never a part of velvet revolver and their music is different to gnr

Edited March 30, 2010 by ShockTK

[ShockTK]

Once again, you will not be watch 'The' Guns n Roses, just Axl and friends. Just a brand name.

I'm not saying don't watch him and his friends, just that its not Guns n Roses without Slash, Duff etc.

[Tom1889]

To be fair, Metallica are shit. I don't listen to Metal anymore but of all the bands I avoided the most, Metallica were on the top. Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets, no... essential records for not just any fan of metal but of music in general. But everything else? No thanks. Just not how I liked my Metal. Slayer are still the greatest Metal band, but that's just my opinion. Had a bit of a blip with Diabolus in Musica but otherwise I can't fault them.

[she bangs the drums]

Oh so you're self-righteous?

Tell me, who are you to presume what GNR is and what it isn't?

I don't love Axl. I love Guns N Roses. I've been a die hard fan of theirs for 19 years. Nothing changes the music and the fact they have a back catalogue of timeless songs that will be played for years and years.

BUT...

Why should we dwell on these songs? If anything, they should create MORE!

Bands evolve. Bands contemporise. Bands gain ambition. Bands wish to take it to the next step. All the departures of Slash, Duff, Matt, and Izzy (occasionally) prove is that there are 4 people there not prepared to join in with Axl as he takes the band to the next step. That's it.

I support Axl's decisions just as I support the ex-members' decisions, but just because they leave - it doesn't mean Guns N Roses ceases to exist. It's just Axl taking the band's music to another level of ambition.

[ShockTK]

Metallica piss all over Guns n' Roses by a country mile.

Sorry to end on an aggressive note, but Appetite for destruction (minus Paradise City, Sweet Child and Welcome to the Jungle) is a terrible album. Discuss

[rexclark]

I;ve made this point before and I'll make it again, this forum is not completely representative of the whole crowd at the festival. I was there when GnR played in 02 and I can tell you, the crowd weas intense waiting an extra hour for them to come on, it was insane when they finally came on, for anyone who hasn't seen them, as soon as the opening chords of Welcome To The Jungle is played and you see Axl come on the stage the hairs on your arms will stand up and you will be amazed.

There will be thousands of people who feel exactly the same and won't just be turning up to moan about Axl and his backing band being shit.

See you all down the front.

[ShockTK]

The thing that always set Guns n Roses apart from the other metal bands in the 80s was the fact they took more influence from AC/DC and Black Flag than they did Van Halen and Motley Crue.

I'm almost tempted to say that if the band grew up about a thousand miles further up the east coast of America and waited until about 1988 or 1989 to form, they'd probably be Nirvana.

Edited March 30, 2010 by ShockTK

[mrtourette]

I'm almost tempted to say that if the band grew up about a thousand miles further up the east coast of America and waited until about 1988 or 1989 to form, they'd probably be Nirvana.

[rexclark]

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.