Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Rolling Stone?s Rules for the Fair Use of Important Band Names


Few weeks go by when we don?t hear from some band fighting with former members about whether or not they can tour under the famed name. This week, it?s the Beach Boys, who are in court to determine whether or not Al Jardine and his band of non-Boys can tour as the Beach Boys. Rock & roll doesn?t belong in court, so we?re gonna lay down the law, once and for all.

LAW NUMBER ONE
The Jim Morrison Factor

If the main creative forces and/or voice of the band are no longer in the mix, that band may no longer keep their name and must change. This law can be divided into two corollaries:

COROLLARY NUMBER ONE
The Joy Division/New Order Referendum

When Ian Curtis died just as Joy Division was on the verge of stardom, his bandmates did the right thing: They started from scratch with a new name. Maybe you?ve heard of them: They call themselves New Order. We love when this happens. Other examples: The David Byrne-less Talking Heads simply became the Heads, and post-Jerry Garcia Grateful Dead toured as the Dead.

COROLLARY NUMBER TWO
The AC/DC Theory

AC/DC and, to a lesser extent, Can, are two bands that lost their lead singer, replaced him, kept their band name and went on to have greater success (Pink Floyd are another case in itself, as we?ll explain later). More recently, classic rockers such as Queen and The Doors have toured the countryside with new singers to replace dead ones.

We see it like this: If you close your eyes, and the band you?re hearing sounds noticeably different from the way it originally sounded, the new formation must change its name. For example, when the Rolling Stones? Brian Jones died, and Mick Taylor took his place, had you closed your eyes during a performance, only the keenest ear would have noticed the change. You would have noticed if Jagger was replaced by any other vocalist, however, and they would no longer be the Rolling Stones.

Got it? Next law.

LAW NUMBER TWO
The Rule of Interchangeable Parts (The Jethro Tull Postulate)

When Graham Coxon left Blur and was replaced by Simon Tong, we were unhappy but cool with it. Coxon?s shoes are tough to fill, but they are fillable, and Damon Albarn was the voice and greater creative force behind Blur, so therefore they could keep the name.

We?ve seen this more than once: the Allman Brothers after the death of Duane Allman, Roxy Music after Brian Eno left, RHCP and their parade of guitarists. To further make our point, we extend our law to include these provisions:

AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE
The Law of Fractions

If three-quarters of the band are still together, and one of them is the lead
singer, that band can still be referred by their original name. If three-quarters of the band are still together, and the lead singer is not involved, they have two choices: Add the new singer?s name to the original band name (ex. Paul Rodgers & Queen) or alter the initial name (ex. The Doors of the 21st Century)

In the event that only half the band is together, the remaining half must be responsible for both Lead Vocals and Songwriting Duties in order to claim the original band name. The Who may remain The Who despite missing both John Entwistle and Keith Moon. However, had Daltrey and Entwistle been the only remaining members, the band is no longer be The Who. (Townshend is the creative force.)

This law gets more complex when we discuss:

AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO
The Axl Rose Edict

If the lead singer of the band is also the creative force, that individual may assemble any group of musicians and perform under the original name. Therefore, a Guns N? Roses with only Axl Rose is still GN?R. (Meanwhile, the previous other original members of GN?R joined with Scott Weiland to form Velvet Revolver, a move that follows The Joy Division/New Order corollary. Make sense?)


Complete Article Here:  http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/02/01/rolling-stones-rules-for-the-fair-use-of-important-band-names/

i was just gonna post this

 basically rolling stone thinks axl should calls the band guns n roses

Haha! Is quite cool actually  : ok: Good read

Rolling Stone approves, but some of you fuckers (You know who you are) can't?

If Rolling Stone agrees that everyone should fuck their mothers does that make it right?

^my momma sure is purdy.   :)

seriously, Rolling Stone just told us what we already know.  Hopefully that's a good sign for a nice interview with the band and a sweet cover I will frame and have on my wall for another few decades!   8)

RollingStone was also called a joke magazine around here because they gave Contraband a glowing 4 star review.

So either they are proving to be consitently wrong with their opinions, or we are doing alot of cherry-picking around here.

I was gonna add that too. Its not up to a magazine and its not up to posters on this board. Fans have their own thoughts on the subject. Some of those fans are still fans of Axl and will support the new Guns but that doesn't seem to enough.

They're still a joke.  Nowhere near what they once were.

Right on the money.  : ok: Thanks for posting this. :-*

It honestly is a hell of a lot easier to replicate guitar parts, than it is signature vocal parts : ok:

Sources give Rolling Stone a firm release date of November 21st...

Sorry, couldn't resist  8)

It's a fair enough rule I suppose except that calling Axl the creative force behind the band isn't fair to Slash Izzy..Slash either, but moreso Izzy since I think at the end of the day he wrote/co-wrote more songs than Slash or any of the others besides Axl. My opinion.

I agree!

Hey Devoid, I think ya found one!  ;D

Rolling Stone has ALWAYS been a joke. The fact that they panned every album by Led Zeppelin (at the time of release) but praised Contraband is an indication of how retarded the folks at that magazine really are.

I didn't think I was that hard to spot out. Despite my views on the band name I support and will continue to support Axl and company.. And if that's not enough for some people oh well.

I dont think it's really a big deal. It's the same name, but it's a completely different band.
Funny how different the situation would probably be like if the band wasnt called Guns N' Roses now.
Oh well........I'm glad he kept the name.  :)

If Chinese Democracy is as good as we all hope then I might be in your boat someday.

Yeah Axl wrote the riffs, guitar solos and all the songs right?


Great vocalist and lyricist he is but the guy isnt Fuckin Prince or somebody who writes and records all the instruments.

He was a creative force but not THE ONLY Creative force.

I love Rolling Stone for this.. Alotta people need to get it through their heads..

wow, some of the people on rolling stone sound like us:

>nico1138 | 2/1/2007, 8:19 pm EST
>In the last GNR british tour, during Paradise City, Axl Rose lost his voice, and Sebastian Bach replace him.
>in that moment, none of the band memers playing on stage were Guns n Roses.
>THAT?S A TRIBUTE BAND, NOT GUNS N ROSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!

>bob | 2/1/2007, 8:04 pm EST
>GNR is not GNR with Axl and four studio musicians.

>Nick | 2/1/2007, 8:02 pm EST
>Slash was 50% of the creative force behind GN?R. The fact that Axl has failed to release a GN?R album since Slash?s >departure is testament to this. In fact, Axl?s lack of activity was one of the reasons that drove Slash to leave!
>barrel | 2/1/2007, 7:55 pm EST

>why cant all band breakups be like rage against the machines? break up, make new decent band, then reunite >when we really start to miss ya

>roo | 2/1/2007, 7:49 pm EST
>gnr is not gnr without both slash and axl

It sorta pisses me off though with the axl rose edict, b/c it short changes alot of contributions made by slash, duff, and especially IZZY!  I mean dont get me wrong, yes Axl is a very talented guy, and he did contribute alot but there are atleast four other people he shares a stage with.  As much as I love the new music and band, I hate to see everyone else get shortchanged.

Rolling Stone still sucks, but they just scored a few points with me!  :yes:

Most real fans would know that Izzy was on stage a that point.


You know, one Mr. Izzy Stradlin. Maybe it rings a bell to some people...


/jarmo

A real fan would also know that Axl was ill and collapsed - he didn't lose his voice.

True.

But you know, who needs actual facts when you can make shit up....  ::)



/jarmo

So they wrote something that pertained to GN'R AND music in general.

RS just moved up two notches, from zero to two.

Only to move back down in several days...

I think it comes down to defining "creative force".  If it means the person that "forced" the creation, regardless of who actually  created it (riffs, music, lyrics, etc), then The Axl Rose Edict is a valid one,  as you could argue that it was Axl Rose, even though he didn't write everything,  who essentially "forced" the creation into what we know today. This would especially pertain to the 91-94 time period of the band.

If "creative force" is who actually did the creating, then perhaps RS is giving Axl too much credit. 

If you look at the writing credits, Axl is credited for having written more Lyrics and music then anyone else in the band. So therefore he is/was the creative force behind the band.

agreed!

haha that article is awesome and pretty spot on.

the only exception to the van halen rule would be the Gary Cherone-era, which pretty much every van halen fan pretends never happened.

i know there are a few bands that had no original members left. i might be completely wrong but i remember at some point Quiet Riot replaced Kevin Dubrow for a short period with Paul Shortino at a time when the rest of the band where not original members (ie: randy rhodes, kelly garni, or drew forsythe). I never understood how that worked.

Garry Cherone was in Van Halen? I... don't know what you're talking about...

I guess the people at RS are split on Axl. They love him one month and hate him the next.

It all goes back to what Ive stated since day one here.


I am one of the biggest Axl supporters and fans in the world, but I dont think its right or fair to shortchange the other band members.

U don't have to slag off the Original band to love the new band and a True GNR fan would know the contributions of the original members and not shortchange them either.

Nobody is getting shortchanged, christ.  ::)

They are simply justifying why Axl Rose can carry on Guns N' Roses.   Its what he has done here, there is no dispute.   In 2006, I saw Guns 4 times.   

See, it depends on how one defines creative force.  You define it as whom ever created "the most".  If thats how you define it, and I'm not saying you're wrong, then yes he is the creative force.  I consider Axl the creative force because of the first cenario, as he is also doing it with the current lineup.  Although I do not know who exactly has written what on the new material, but I assume Axl did not "create" all of it.  Maybe he wrote most of it, but even if he only wrote some of it,  he is still the one who brings it all together.  He seems to bring the band's ideas and contributions together, for this lineup and the old, thus being the creative force behind it. Bands name, GNR.

 :hihi: I wonder how long it will take before this thread get moved to the dead horse section....

Ok so Axl was the guitarst, Bassist, Drummer and Producer of AFD and UYI's and Lies............................ ::)



He contributed but I personally feel Izzy and Slash contributed just as much as Axl did.

If Axl had CC Deville laying down his riffs, We more than likely wouldn't be on here worshipping him today. remember that!

Hmm, in no way did I imply that Axl did all of those things, nor did I mean that Axl's contributions were more important than any of the band members, past or present.  I just consider creative force more than the act of writing, playing, producing, etc, and put more emphasize on who is "forcing" the creation, which is why I bring up the 91-94 period, as that seemed to be Axl's vision of the band, the epic videos, horn sections, etc. 

Oh, and the whole CC Deville thing, that kind of logic can go on and on and doesn't prove much.  CC deville would most likely destroy any band.  What if he was born 20 years earlier and was in Zepplin? Or Aerosmith? Or the Beatles? Or the Stones?

you dont know that.

this is a stupid fucking argument.

and its turning into a whether or not this band should be called Guns N Roses. 

Its 2007, I dont give a fuck or even want to talk about Slash or Duff.    I dont need to remember shit.  They aren't in the band, they left.  I dont give a flying fuck about what happened 20 years ago.   It doesn't matter now.   

 :rofl:

Exaclty. I like Slash and Duff, but they have a band now, and it isn't named Guns N' Roses.

they live in the past and they wont back to present soon, I guess ::)

I could give a rats ass what RS thinks.

   This is GNFR with or without their consent, they lost all credibility when in a Tragically Hip review (for Day by Night)  they went on to say "this is Why Blue Rodeo continues to be the best band in Canada".

 

It's one insignificnat person who works in RS that thinks like that.....and if he said otherwise you'd be up his ass ???

What I think is funny is that RS approves and a bunch of people treat it like the Bible, but when they say something bad about GNR, some of these same people are trashing the magazine.

U do realize that what happened 20 years ago is the whole reason Axl is around today right?

U DO need to remember the history and u do need to give credit where it is deserved.

I support the NEW GNR and I like the new band, but people like u who continously try to rewrite history and try to make the old band insignificant as if Axl did all this shit on his own make me sick and make it impossible for me to love the new band as much I want to.

Its like u have no comprehension of music or what it takes to make a song at all.   Was Axl fucking singing acapella on all the songs?  Were all the songs piano and Axl's vocals?  Did Axl hum all the guitar riffs and solos to Slash and Izzy? NO he did NOT so what the old band did with Axl 20 years ago is extremely important cause without what they did 20 years ago there would be NO Axl Rose Today and there would be no Slash,Izzy,Duff,Steven,Matt,Dizzy TODAY in the form that we know them.

U can love the new band more than the old if u want but DONT discredit the original members who pulled their share of the weight and were just as responsible for GNR being one of the greatest bands EVER.

jarmo | 2/2/2007, 1:56 am EST

What a wonderful topic to examine. After reading all of the feebback I think it?s quite equivocal that there are two schools of thought developing here. One group believes that GNR is AXL ROSE, that Axl is an artist that has been changing what GNR means throughout the span of the band?s career. These folks invision Axl as a painter, almost as if he conjured up a Slash, Izzy, Duff, Steven in his first painting and now his next painting is the new GNR?Most people consider the folks in this first school to be delusional and neurotic, and they are.

The second school lives on planet earth. Guns N Roses is dead is what they believe deep down inside. You talk about authenticity? Having someone else play Slash?s material every night is musical plagiarism. Even when they play new material, it?s still not authentic to call this new band Guns N Roses because the only reason people show up is to hear the original bands material. I concur with the Axl-lites that an incredible album will give this new band some legitimacy back, but the 10 year delay speaks volumes to the fact that Axl can not deliver the goods. Only ignoramus individuals could possible believe that Axl has just been holding onto the best album ever; if it was good in 2002-2006, he would have released it.

So here we are, Axl?s back in the studio putting the ?finishin touches? on Chinese Democracy, once again. It?s 2007 and the world doesn?t care. Guns N Roses is at best a special on VH1 Classic at this point. I?ve seen this new band so many times and I would trade the last 6 years for just one song live from the original group, and most people feel this way. What I don?t get is how people here claim this new band has chemistry, please, their live shows have no energy anymore.

Axl Rose is such the cliche of what happens to an aging rock star. Seriously, back in 2000-2001 there was such promise, but fucking 6 years later and still nothing?!?!?!? It?s a fucking joke. Fucking IRS is going to be on the album? That song is a shit show that Axl could have written in 3 days with the old band. Think about this people, you wake up everyday, go to work and get shit done?Axl?s had 3650 days and he can?t even complete 13-15 tracks? Fucking a.

/jarmo


Was this really you who wrote this comment jarmo??  ???

Awesome post man. Agree 100 percent.

No one gains by the whole Old v. New debate. I don't see why everyone involved can't? just embrace and celebrate the GN'R history of the past- and give the due respect to the former members (as well as support their current projects) and the insane success they achieved between 87-93 they deserve- while at the same time getting excited about the new band and be pleased that in this day and age you can still go by a ticket to a GN'R show, read about GN'R in Rolling Stone, hear about them on MTV, VH-1, and perhaps, maybe, fingers crossed, if you're good, buy a new GN'R album. Life is not THAT bad in GN'R world- but everyone (both supporters of the new band as well as the old) seems to always focus on the negative...

No, I don't post on RollingStone.com OR Velvet Rope.



/jarmo

I dont have to do anything.   Yes, we all konw what happened 20 years ago and its been discussed to death.   This really isn't about 1987 anymore.

That is your problem.  You are taking it way too seriously.   Like a band because its what you like, don't let other people's opinions influence that.  This is about music.. songs.  If you are seriously sickened by mine or likeminded posts, get yourself some help.    :peace:

I don't discredit anyone or try to rewrite history.  I know what happened and that was then, this is now.   GNR is my favorite band, but yesterdays got nothin for me.    its not that I dont give credit where it is due.. I've already done that and I'm moving on.   

Enjoy living in 1988  :peace:

Hey now at least an album and a LP was released by 1988.

Oh.. ok... thanks for clearing it up... it  just might be kinda weird and annoying having other ppl writing in your behalf... :-\

Why when people speak of GNR they say 88?

the Illusions are my favorite albums so I guess i am stuck in 91 or 92.



I support New GNR, I support Velvet Revolver but I am sick of people on here acting as if Axl is was and always will be by himself GNR.


Why cant new fans just give the old band their props, say I respect,appreciate and admire the old bands contribution and I am ready to see what the new band can contribute and let that be that instead of the whole attitude that Axl carried the original band members to greatness and the attitude that Axl basically could've had anyone in GNR and still achieved all the stuff GNR achieved. It isn't fair to the old members and it isnt fair to fans like myself that appreciate both the old and new band.


I love the new band but I hate constantly having to defend the old band against New fans with no respect at all for the original members.

Axl alone himself is not GNR.  GNR is Axl, Robin, Dizzy, Tommy, Richard, Ron, Brain, Frank, and Chris.   I dont really see how Velvet Revolver factors in there, but leave it to you to bring them into this.

I have given the old band props.  Years and years ago when it was actually happening, in fact.  What does this have to do with today?  Nothing.   Lets move on now.  The old vs new shit is tired and old.  THe old band was fucking great, but thats not what Guns N Roses is in 2007.   It gets irritating to see Slash constantly dragged into these topics.

releasing an album without slash is old but thats how it is.

Yeah how unlogical to bring up a band that has 2 original members of Guns N Roses in a discussion about Guns N Roses ::) Or to restate this, a band that has more original members of Guns N Roses than the current Guns N Roses.


It has everything to do with today, everything that happened in those years are the only reasons you're here today on this message board, the music released by that band all those years ago are the reasons we all are here. Its what we all enjoy and there's no reason to ignore it like its not worth anything or no longer good anymore.

There is a VR section on this board you know, maybe you guys should find it.  : ok:  That is where discussion on them belong.  Not here.   you aren't stating anything new by telling me Axl is the only original member of GNR in the band now.   We know this already, so what?


Are Slash or Duff or Matt or any of those guys in GNR now?  No.   Again, go find the VR section.  Plenty to go discuss there I would imagine.   I want to talk about GNR 2007.  You dont see me posting in the VR section.   i dont go to the VR section and talk about how great Robin Finck is or how much of a sellout Slash is, or how much better a frontman, songwriter, singer and overall musican Axl Rose is compared to Scott Weiland.   Likewise, don't come here and expect sympathy for the guys who aren't in the band any longer.   They all chose to not be here and as a result you can go discuss them somewhere else.

I dont know why I bother debating this with someone with a slash avatar.  ::)

But the "old" Guns N' Roses released material and did interviews and acted like a band. Maybe when this new version releases something and starts acting like a band and doing interviews and all that stuff bands do it will be easier to relate to them as Guns N' Roses. The new band doesn't have a persona of their own yet. They tour playing mostly the old band's songs.  It's hard as a fan trying to accept this line-up when they seem to be banking on the past.

yeah its lucky most of us got the internet aint it jimbob otherwise we'd be like who the fuck r these guys ;)

this is what i told people eight years ago, back then most people seemed to be against it.
glad some eyes have been opened. axl takes good care of the guns n' roses name, and they're right, he was always the real creative force behind guns n' roses and he continues to be. you fuckers who doubt him will be proven so wrong, and i'm gonna stand proudly by his side knowing i supported him every step of the way.

listen to Hollywood Rose; that listen to AFD ;D

************

Axl was THE creative force on Guns n' Roses?? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
This is THE joke of the century.

Izzy and Slash and Duff and Steven WROTE LIKE 80-90% OF THE MUSIC (with the exception of SOME vocal melodies and SOME lyrics). If you know a little of GN'R story you know that some musics (example: Brownstone, Patience, Think About You) actually had melodies and lyrics before Axl ever touched them.

Axl was A creative force on Guns n' Roses. A strong one. But NEVER the only one. Guns n' Roses was a BAND. A collaborative multi-dimensional effort. That is one of the reasons that made GN'R SO GREAT.

If you people CAN NOT SEE THAT, maybe it is because you are IGNORANT. And that is ok, because there is always time to learn. But if you know just a little about GN'R and still can not see that, well that is because you are BLIND or DEAF or in DENIAL. Or because you have EVIL MANIAC intentions of twisting the FACTS.

Rolling Stone? They are just showing how little knowledge (and respect by their readers) they have (and, in extent, by themselves). They are probably so desperate to get an Axl exclusive interview or something that they do not care about TWISTING THE FACTS in order to please the man and get it done!

Luciano
*************

Amen brother!  So many on here seem to believe they're being forced to choose between old GNR and new, as if you'll go to your local record store and be required to turn in your copy of Appetite, when picking up Chinese Democracy.  But it ain't so!  GNR has always been my favorite band, and that's the GNR that released Appetite, Lies, and UYI.  I don't know whether this new album will definitely be better or worse than the old material, but I'm sure I'll at least LIKE it...and that doesn't mean I don't love the stuff done before the old lineup(s) split up.

Say it with me, people: IT'S NOT A FUCKING COMPETITION! 

If it is a competition to you, then I feel very sorry for you, because the old stuff is great, and I anticipate the new will be as well.  If you can't bring yourself to enjoy both, then I guess you're shit outta luck.     

i kinda have trouble accepting that gnr is anything other than axl really too. even back in the day, he and slash would make decisions then run them by duff, but axl would ultimately decide.

we may never see the new band behave more like a band, as its quite clear that axl has put this band together and very much leads it.

we may never see the others get involved in promo interviews etc. they may just have to settle for their contributions being recognised in the form of writing credits in the album info.

Speaking of writing credits, all we have to do to know whether axl was gnr in the old days is look at the writing credits. O, and then remember the fact that if he didnt wnat it to happen, it didnt.

Evidence for all this can be found in the interviews section of this very website. but i spose people cant be bothered to read. too busy throwing ill informed opinions around.

So true.  Regardless of what the lineup is at any given time, Axl has always had the most control and called the shots for the most part.    GNR is his band.

Jim Bob how can u say we shouldnt bring Slash into a conversation that IS ABOUT THE OLD BAND.

are u serious?


What do u think this thread and topic are about?


Axl Rose IS NOT and NEVER WILL be Guns N Roses.


Luciano Excellent post, I couldn't have said it better.

Axl was A member of Guns N Roses.

This isnt Prince and The Revolution where Prince wrote and recorded every song and every musical instrument and only used The Revolution as a touring band.

This isnt Trent Reznor who does all the work himself and then uses a touring band to play live.


Axl wrote vocals,melodies,lyrics,piano and a guitar part here and there on One In A million and Dead Horse.  That is hardly being a SOLE Creative force.

That would be like calling Robert Plant the creative force behind Led Zepplin.

I'm saying he's not in the fucking band anymore and I dont care to talk about Slash.   Fuck slash, I'm sick of hearing people whine for him and shit.   Its nonstop.  People wont let go of the fucking past and Slash has no fucking involvment in GNR anymore.   


Since you seem to like to keep redundently repeating yourself, I'll go ahead and do the same thing.   You are right, while GNR is Axl's band, he alone is not Guns N' Roses.   Guns N' Roses is Axl, Dizzy, Robin, Tommy, Richard, Chris, Ron, Brain, and Frank.

Notice, your precious Slash is not in that list of names.   Get a fucking clue.

your overwhelming lack of information and obvious bias towards axl should disqualify your membership on this board.

yea what he said

U guys are aware that Axl didnt write the guitar parts, drum parts, bass parts and on quite a few songs the lyrics or melodies right?


U guys are aware of that arent u?

yeah, but i'm talking about melody lines, lyrics and also picking out the guitar solos he liked when he heard them come into shape.
you are aware of that aren't you?

Creativity=Originality

What elements of a song call for originality the most?  Drum beats, chord progression, riffs or vocal melody and lyrics?
Which parts ought to be dissimilar to those of other songs in order to make the song original and not a cheat?


did you really think jarmo might have wrote that load of garbage? ???

it's the singer not the song that makes the music move along...... :peace: that being said, the holy trinity of Axl-Slash-Izzy made the old band great. It remains to be seen as to who steps up on Chinese. :peace:

The Blues
Madagascar
Chi Dem
Better
Catcher
IRS
TWAT

With songs like these the band is still very much Guns n Roses. And very much as good as ever. Axl is just fine with his new friends and doesn't miss (or need) anyone else.

The new songs still have the Guns N Roses vibe.  Most of the ex-members music since their departure doesn't really sound like GnR at all.  Take the VR album for instance, none of those songs have a GnR vibe to them

The Blues, TWAT, and IRS all have a GnR vibe to them, just with a more modern sound.  The Blues in particular sounds like it could have been on UYI.  Even a song like Better which musically doesn't sound at all like old GnR still has the same type of vibe as say SCOM where it has a pop friendly catchiness to it but also has an edge that's missing in those type of rock songs from any other group. 

Obviously Axl wasn't the lone creative force behind the band, but when you listen to the new songs produced by the other band members and then the ones produced by Axl and the new GnR, the new GnR sounds more like the old GnR than anything the members of old GnR have done since they left

That's funny cause I see it 50/50. When you have a great song both is great, the one isn't more important then the other.

As for the rest goes I agree with D and Luciano.

Just because he didnt physically write them doesnt mean he didnt influence them. I'm a singer in band and I cant really play guitar or drums, but I have riffs in my head and I tell my guitarists what to play sometimes. All you have to do is hum the riff or tell the drummer how to play a certain way and that is part of writing. So depsite your attempt to take away from Axl, I'm sure Axl was a lot more involved than you are giving credit for.


ShotgunBlues1978 I def agree with you. All the new songs have that Guns vibe to them, whereas everything that the other members have released does not. To me VR sounds more like STP then Guns.

^

I agree with that, I have done that before myself, but that didnt happen everytime here. Take NR and Estranged for instance.


Sure Axl may have had to Approve the Solo's but slash still had to come up with them,see what I am saying?

I don't argue that Axl pushed Slash to be the best he could be, but it was still Slash who had to write the solos etc.



All this being said, Axl is talented and creative enough to make a great record without the former band members, Dont get me wrong,t he songs we have heard are amazing.

I just want to point out that u dont have to hate or slag off the old bandmembers to be a fan of Axl or the new members.? ? U dont have to discredit and treat the old members as if they were stand ins.


Axl could've sit with CC Deville or some other 80's guitarist till he was blue in the face and they wouldn't have came up with SCOM, WTTJ, PC etc

See what I am sayin?


And it was SLASH who influenced AXL on SCOM.? Cause it was Slash's guitar part that inspired Axl to write their biggest hit.

So love Axl and the new band, but dont forget the greatness of the original, thats all I ask.

How could anyone forget?

a topic of gnr doesn't go without " GnR ain't shit without slash" which is cool when you have no released material without slash in it.? I respect slash for what he did, but that was? 11 years ago? and I really like what GNR is now

Just wanted to point out that Slash hated that song and has said he came up with that riff as a joke.

Slash *sometimes* gets too much credit.

Just because he hated that song doesn't change the fact he was the one wrote the riff, influenced Axl to write the song and came up with some of the biggest contributions to it.

***********

Some of you guys are so clueless about GN'R history that it is plain sad. Go do your homework kids. Go read some old interviews and go listen to some old bootlegs where Axl himself says who wrote the songs. Then you will learn that Guns n' Roses was a BAND (is it so hard to understand?) and not Axl's band. And that is all there is to it, no matter how many stupid crap you read on Rolling Stone.

Luciano

***********

Too say Slash has no part in GnR anymore; yet, on the last tour, to play 90% of old GnR tunes where Slash was a major force in the band; is a bit inaccurate.