New Dj interview at LegendaryRockInterviews.com (Sep 2014)

[D-GenerationX]

We've had discussion before. I'm pretty sure of it.

After Izzy left, the band who recorded those albums didn't exist. One of the main songwriters was out. But that's "justified" with, the three guys were still there. It's fine, whatever.
When you bring up the fact that Axl, Dizzy, Tommy and Chris were there to record Chinese, and tour, it's just somebody being in denial....

There's so many similarities through the history of the band, yet some things are "ok" and others are "bad". It's ok, everybody has their opinions. But please don't act all "objective".... 

You are taking it too literal, I think.

We had a judge here in the States that famously defined pornography as "I know it when I see it".

But that is what people mean.  This is not Guns N' Roses.  Never will be.  Doesn't pass the eye test.

Yes, they are still called Guns N' Roses.  Yes, it is an organization that has had line-up changes throughout, even back in the day.  These are both valid.  Doesn't resonate with folks though.  

And I think that only bothers a person if they have some sort of beef with the reality these guys will never be looked as Guns N' Roses - EVER.  I never got the impression you can live with that though.  And I think that is borne out in your passionate defenses of semantics, as if that is what people are talking about (when they aren't).

So you wind it up with one your "it's funny that..." type deals, and never really address the point.

[D-GenerationX]

I'll explain this to you. I'll try to be short. Sometimes what people consider a "core" member of a band is somebody who was there when the band started, sometimes it's the main songwriter, sometimes the guy who was there the longest, sometimes the whatever. These reasons, or excuses, can be used in any form that the person wants. Just to fit their own opinion.

Its when the band in question was at its most popular and released their definitive songs.

You are WAY overthinking it.

[Ali]

I'll explain this to you. I'll try to be short. Sometimes what people consider a "core" member of a band is somebody who was there when the band started, sometimes it's the main songwriter, sometimes the guy who was there the longest, sometimes the whatever. These reasons, or excuses, can be used in any form that the person wants. Just to fit their own opinion.

Its when the band in question was at its most popular and released their definitive songs.

You are WAY overthinking it.

IMO, Jarmo's point stands.  You have your definition of "core" member.  Others may have their own.

Ali

[Ali]

We've had discussion before. I'm pretty sure of it.

After Izzy left, the band who recorded those albums didn't exist. One of the main songwriters was out. But that's "justified" with, the three guys were still there. It's fine, whatever.
When you bring up the fact that Axl, Dizzy, Tommy and Chris were there to record Chinese, and tour, it's just somebody being in denial....

There's so many similarities through the history of the band, yet some things are "ok" and others are "bad". It's ok, everybody has their opinions. But please don't act all "objective".... 

You are taking it too literal, I think.

We had a judge here in the States that famously defined pornography as "I know it when I see it".

But that is what people mean.  This is not Guns N' Roses.  Never will be.  Doesn't pass the eye test.

Yes, they are still called Guns N' Roses.  Yes, it is an organization that has had line-up changes throughout, even back in the day.  These are both valid.  Doesn't resonate with folks though.  

And I think that only bothers a person if they have some sort of beef with the reality these guys will never be looked as Guns N' Roses - EVER.  I never got the impression you can live with that though.  And I think that is borne out in your passionate defenses of semantics, as if that is what people are talking about (when they aren't).

So you wind it up with one your "it's funny that..." type deals, and never really address the point.

The problem with all this is that this IS Guns N' Roses.  That's not a matter of opinion.  That's a matter of fact.

That's not stated to be offensive, but to be clear.

Now, it seems to me what you're really talking about is whether or not people accept this band as Guns N' Roses.  That's a matter of opinion.  Of course, there will always be variation with opinions.

Whether or not someone else accepts this band as Guns N' Roses has no bearing on two points:

1) Whether or not the band IS Guns N' Roses

2) Whether or not I, personally, enjoy the shows or the music.  I would hope that would be the case with others, but understand it may not be.

Ali

[D-GenerationX]

IMO, Jarmo's point stands.  You have your definition of "core" member.  Others may have their own.

I have the general consensus of the concept of the topic.  jarmo has his fingers in his ears screaming "la-la-la".

Megadeth has undergone countless changes.  But the same 4 guys did :

Rust In Peace
Countdown To Extinction
Youthanasia
Cryptic Writings

Guess what?...those guys are Megadeth in the eyes of most people.  Those are the songs most people know and when they were at the top.

Now, are there Megadeth fans that have their "I just think its funny that..." or "that's your opinion..." types, just like any band?  Probably.  But so what?

Is the Bruce Dickinson line-up with Iron Maiden considered the real one?  Yep.

And we could go on.

[D-GenerationX]

The problem with all this is that this IS Guns N' Roses.  That's not a matter of opinion.  That's a matter of fact.

It's the Guns N' Roses we have, not necessarily the Guns N' Roses we want.

Is that some unfair take on the subject?  I can make due with what's we've got, but never if I was offered the choice between the two.

You don't think that's worldwide?

[Ali]

IMO, Jarmo's point stands.  You have your definition of "core" member.  Others may have their own.

I have the general consensus of the concept of the topic.  jarmo has his fingers in his ears screaming "la-la-la".

Megadeth has undergone countless changes.  But the same 4 guys did :

Rust In Peace
Countdown To Extinction
Youthanasia
Cryptic Writings

Guess what?...those guys are Megadeth in the eyes of most people.  Those are the songs most people know and when they were at the top.

Now, are there Megadeth fans that have their "I just think its funny that..." or "that's your opinion..." types, just like any band?  Probably.  But so what?

Is the Bruce Dickinson line-up with Iron Maiden considered the real one?  Yep.

And we could go on.

Interesting, I consider United Abominations one of the best Megadeth albums, and Dave Ellefson wasn't on it.  I love the Di'Anno Maiden albums every bit as much as any of the Dickinson albums.  I know others that feel the same.

That's neither here nor there. 

The point is "definitive" lineups or "core" members is debatable.  It's not a matter of absolute fact as you're trying to make it out to be.  It's a matter of opinion.

Some people consider Steven Adler an essential member of the old GN'R because of his drumming style and sound and how it affected the overall sound of the AFD songs even though he didn't write any riffs, lyrics or melodies.  Others don't agree that he was an essential member of the band.

It's a matter of opinion.

Ali

[Ali]

The problem with all this is that this IS Guns N' Roses.  That's not a matter of opinion.  That's a matter of fact.

It's the Guns N' Roses we have, not necessarily the Guns N' Roses we want.

Is that some unfair take on the subject?  I can make due with what's we've got, but never if I was offered the choice between the two.

You don't think that's worldwide?

It may not be the GN'R you want, and you may never have been offered a choice, but that's because it isn't up to you or me or anyone one of us fans to decided what is and is not Guns N' Roses.  It's not like if you or I or any other fan declares that we do not accept this lineup as Guns N' Roses, the next release or ticket sold will not have the words Guns N' Roses printed on it.

You can accept or not accept it.  But, it's not our place to define.

Ali

[fozzie10]

Personally speaking the second Adler left the band,for me,it stopped being Guns n Roses,when an original member leaves any band the thing the made them successful (if they are of course),goes with them and it can never come back,now its up to the person if they can see past the fact that the band has lost a member or not and i suppose after awhile i could though never regard the band in the same light as when i first listened to AFD.

As time wore on of course and the line up changes came ever more frequent i started to see the band as it stands now as a seperate entity from the "golden" line up of the late '80's and its cool,it made me come back with a renewed respect for the bands catalougue,something i'd lost through the nonsense of members leaving etc,this at the moment is a fine live act,i dont think any recorded music will come out through it though(just a hunch nothing more,hope im utterly wrong on that point),they deserve their chance but i just dont think,other than a live act they'll get the chance to step up.

The sad thing of course is if the original line up could have held it together for 10 15 years or so who knows how good they could have been and i think thats what upsets people the most,the band didnt perhaps reach their fullest potential after that debut album.

[D-GenerationX]

It may not be the GN'R you want, and you may never have been offered a choice, but that's because it isn't up to you or me or anyone one of us fans to decided what is and is not Guns N' Roses.  It's not like if you or I or any other fan declares that we do not accept this lineup as Guns N' Roses, the next release or ticket sold will not have the words Guns N' Roses printed on it.

You can accept or not accept it.  But, it's not our place to define.

I agree with all of this.  I just think we are coming at this from different directions.

If someone told me they could never accept this as GNR, and for them GNR died in 1993, I wouldn't correct them.  I wouldn't try and make this argument you are making, because I know it would fall on deaf ears.  And frankly, even I would not believe the words coming out of my mouth.  I see your point, but to be honest, largely dismiss it.  No one outside of this particular board accepts that. 

What I can't accept are people that say they think GNR died in 1993, and fuck them...but still come to the boards every day to piss and moan about it.  That's quizzical behavior to me.

[Ginger King]

IMO, Jarmo's point stands.  You have your definition of "core" member.  Others may have their own.

I have the general consensus of the concept of the topic.  jarmo has his fingers in his ears screaming "la-la-la".

Megadeth has undergone countless changes.  But the same 4 guys did :

Rust In Peace
Countdown To Extinction
Youthanasia
Cryptic Writings

Guess what?...those guys are Megadeth in the eyes of most people.  Those are the songs most people know and when they were at the top.

Now, are there Megadeth fans that have their "I just think its funny that..." or "that's your opinion..." types, just like any band?  Probably.  But so what?

Is the Bruce Dickinson line-up with Iron Maiden considered the real one?  Yep.

And we could go on.

Interesting, I consider United Abominations one of the best Megadeth albums, and Dave Ellefson wasn't on it.  I love the Di'Anno Maiden albums every bit as much as any of the Dickinson albums.  I know others that feel the same.

That's neither here nor there. 

The point is "definitive" lineups or "core" members is debatable.  It's not a matter of absolute fact as you're trying to make it out to be.  It's a matter of opinion.

Some people consider Steven Adler an essential member of the old GN'R because of his drumming style and sound and how it affected the overall sound of the AFD songs even though he didn't write any riffs, lyrics or melodies.  Others don't agree that he was an essential member of the band.

It's a matter of opinion.

Ali

Wait, is this really up for debate???  It seems pretty clear.  The core members of GnR are:  Axl, Slash, Duff, and Izzy.  If there?s any debate, it?s whether Steven qualifies as well.

Can anyone really argue DJ Ashba is a core member of Guns n Roses?  Or Robin, Bumble, Richard or Paul Tobias?  Does anyone say, ?hey, I read an interview in Obscure Rocker Weekly with Frank Ferrer, and I want to learn more about his band??  Ever hear anyone say, ?hey, I was watching my favorite movie, Body of Lies, and heard this song in the credits and had to hear more??  Of course not.

Debating this is really revisionist history to justify the current state of affairs.

[D-GenerationX]

Wait, is this really up for debate???  It seems pretty clear.  The core members of GnR are:  Axl, Slash, Duff, and Izzy.  If there?s any debate, it?s whether Steven qualifies as well.

Can anyone really argue DJ Ashba is a core member of Guns n Roses?  Or Robin, Bumble, Richard or Paul Tobias?  Does anyone say, ?hey, I read an interview in Obscure Rocker Weekly with Frank Ferrer, and I want to learn more about his band??  Ever hear anyone say, ?hey, I was watching my favorite movie, Body of Lies, and heard this song in the credits and had to hear more??  Of course not.

Debating this is really revisionist history to justify the current state of affairs.

<drops mic>

[Ali]

It may not be the GN'R you want, and you may never have been offered a choice, but that's because it isn't up to you or me or anyone one of us fans to decided what is and is not Guns N' Roses.  It's not like if you or I or any other fan declares that we do not accept this lineup as Guns N' Roses, the next release or ticket sold will not have the words Guns N' Roses printed on it.

You can accept or not accept it.  But, it's not our place to define.

I agree with all of this.  I just think we are coming at this from different directions.

If someone told me they could never accept this as GNR, and for them GNR died in 1993, I wouldn't correct them.  I wouldn't try and make this argument you are making, because I know it would fall on deaf ears.  And frankly, even I would not believe the words coming out of my mouth.  I see your point, but to be honest, largely dismiss it.  No one outside of this particular board accepts that. 

What I can't accept are people that say they think GNR died in 1993, and fuck them...but still come to the boards every day to piss and moan about it.  That's quizzical behavior to me.

like I said, people can accept or not accept that this is GN'R. But, ultimately that doesn't change what is or isn't GN'R.

Ali

[Ali]

IMO, Jarmo's point stands.  You have your definition of "core" member.  Others may have their own.

I have the general consensus of the concept of the topic.  jarmo has his fingers in his ears screaming "la-la-la".

Megadeth has undergone countless changes.  But the same 4 guys did :

Rust In Peace
Countdown To Extinction
Youthanasia
Cryptic Writings

Guess what?...those guys are Megadeth in the eyes of most people.  Those are the songs most people know and when they were at the top.

Now, are there Megadeth fans that have their "I just think its funny that..." or "that's your opinion..." types, just like any band?  Probably.  But so what?

Is the Bruce Dickinson line-up with Iron Maiden considered the real one?  Yep.

And we could go on.

Interesting, I consider United Abominations one of the best Megadeth albums, and Dave Ellefson wasn't on it.  I love the Di'Anno Maiden albums every bit as much as any of the Dickinson albums.  I know others that feel the same.

That's neither here nor there. 

The point is "definitive" lineups or "core" members is debatable.  It's not a matter of absolute fact as you're trying to make it out to be.  It's a matter of opinion.

Some people consider Steven Adler an essential member of the old GN'R because of his drumming style and sound and how it affected the overall sound of the AFD songs even though he didn't write any riffs, lyrics or melodies.  Others don't agree that he was an essential member of the band.

It's a matter of opinion.

Ali

Wait, is this really up for debate???  It seems pretty clear.  The core members of GnR are:  Axl, Slash, Duff, and Izzy.  If there?s any debate, it?s whether Steven qualifies as well.

Can anyone really argue DJ Ashba is a core member of Guns n Roses?  Or Robin, Bumble, Richard or Paul Tobias?  Does anyone say, ?hey, I read an interview in Obscure Rocker Weekly with Frank Ferrer, and I want to learn more about his band??  Ever hear anyone say, ?hey, I was watching my favorite movie, Body of Lies, and heard this song in the credits and had to hear more??  Of course not.

Debating this is really revisionist history to justify the current state of affairs.

Of course it is up for debate. The fact that you acknowledge that the inclusion of Adler as a "core" member shows it's up for debate. There is no right answer or wrong answer.

Ali

[mortismurphy]

The whole thing is about the idea that for some it's ok if somebody leaves, is replaced and so on, but if somebody else does it, it's not ok.

Like there some kind of secret rulebook for being in a band.


If Ronnie Wood has been in the band for so long and it practically makes him a honorary member, doesn't the same apply to GN'R where many current members have been in the band longer than some of the old line up members were? And now the "but they didn't produce anything" excuse....

See, that's the thing. Sometimes it's about the time, sometimes then it's about how many albums they sold. Whatever works for you.

That's fine. But these "rules" are pretty flexible to fit your opinion at your own leisure....





/jarmo

Ehh, Ron Wood has been a Rolling Stone 1975-2014. He produced - has produced - countless albums with The Stones including the classic, Some Girls. The next, longest, member of GN'R besides W. Axl Rose, is, ehh, Dizzy Reed!!

[GNR2014]

I think someone hit the nail on the head when they mentioned the wasted potential of Guns N' Roses.

They were the Greatest Band of their Age, the next Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin.
They wrote the Best Songs.

Appetite, Lies and the Illusions are Classic Albums from start to finish.
GNR transcended genre and those 4 albums are still embraced by aficionados of Classic Rock, Punk Rock, Heavy Metal, Glam, Jam, etc. etc. etc.

Any way you want to slice it -- it's a damn shame.

The potential of the Appetite lineup was wasted, the potential of the Buckethead-Finck lineup was wasted, and now, the potential of the Bumblefoot era has been pissed away... again.

It's a damn shame, because there isn't any one that frequents this board that doesn't wish there were 4 more GNR albums to sink their teeth into.

[Ginger King]

IMO, Jarmo's point stands.  You have your definition of "core" member.  Others may have their own.

I have the general consensus of the concept of the topic.  jarmo has his fingers in his ears screaming "la-la-la".

Megadeth has undergone countless changes.  But the same 4 guys did :

Rust In Peace
Countdown To Extinction
Youthanasia
Cryptic Writings

Guess what?...those guys are Megadeth in the eyes of most people.  Those are the songs most people know and when they were at the top.

Now, are there Megadeth fans that have their "I just think its funny that..." or "that's your opinion..." types, just like any band?  Probably.  But so what?

Is the Bruce Dickinson line-up with Iron Maiden considered the real one?  Yep.

And we could go on.

Interesting, I consider United Abominations one of the best Megadeth albums, and Dave Ellefson wasn't on it.  I love the Di'Anno Maiden albums every bit as much as any of the Dickinson albums.  I know others that feel the same.

That's neither here nor there. 

The point is "definitive" lineups or "core" members is debatable.  It's not a matter of absolute fact as you're trying to make it out to be.  It's a matter of opinion.

Some people consider Steven Adler an essential member of the old GN'R because of his drumming style and sound and how it affected the overall sound of the AFD songs even though he didn't write any riffs, lyrics or melodies.  Others don't agree that he was an essential member of the band.

It's a matter of opinion.

Ali

Wait, is this really up for debate???  It seems pretty clear.  The core members of GnR are:  Axl, Slash, Duff, and Izzy.  If there?s any debate, it?s whether Steven qualifies as well.

Can anyone really argue DJ Ashba is a core member of Guns n Roses?  Or Robin, Bumble, Richard or Paul Tobias?  Does anyone say, ?hey, I read an interview in Obscure Rocker Weekly with Frank Ferrer, and I want to learn more about his band??  Ever hear anyone say, ?hey, I was watching my favorite movie, Body of Lies, and heard this song in the credits and had to hear more??  Of course not.

Debating this is really revisionist history to justify the current state of affairs.

Of course it is up for debate. The fact that you acknowledge that the inclusion of Adler as a "core" member shows it's up for debate. There is no right answer or wrong answer.

Ali

There is a wrong answer if Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy aren't core members.  What's debatable is whether anyone else belongs there. 

[jarmo]

This is not Guns N' Roses.  Never will be.  

Is this your personal opinion as well?



/jarmo

[draguns]

I agree with Degeneration X and Jaeball. Ali and Jarmo, I definitely disagree with. I think you can like and appreciate the new version of GNR. Guns will always be remembered for the original lineup since there were so many great songs that came from them. It's not just that. You also felt like they were a gang that you wanted  to be a part of. You had the sense that they were like brothers that had an irreplaceable chemistry. They had  the "Eye of the Tiger" and fought their way. They were underdogs that made it to the top. These just some of the traits that  made Guns so likable!

That cannot be duplicated with the new version. You do get the sense that everyone in this band is replaceable. Until something gets produced and band members actually have a sense as to what's going on, it's going to feel this way.

 As quoted by Axl in the "Spaghetti Incident", "Buy the originals".

[jarmo]

Nobody is disputing anything. The whole thing is about how in some cases the definition of core members varies to whatever fits.

This is often confused to mean as being disrespectful towards the past line ups, which is bullshit. Now the disrespect towards the current band members, some of whom have been there longer than the so called core members, that's another topic altogether....



/jarmo