Here Today... Gone To Hell!

.

i dont think it matters if peeps dislike new gnr...  :P

Very much agreed there, Frozen.

I think this is called prejudice.
About the same thing happened when Metallica put out "Load" & "Reload" - most people hated them because they sound completely different than Metalica so far. 
(IMO they are great - if they were debut albums, they would be huge success.)

Image based since most haven't heard the new music, but seen the pics.

"Crash Diet" is an awesome song!!  I think it's the sound more than anything.  Let's face it, some of the newer stuff, especially with Bucket, does not sound like vintage GNR.  I can see a lot of people not liking the new GNR because of that.

Yeh I see what your saying and it's a good point how fickle people are. I have a few friends who are casual fans of the old lineup but think the new lineup is a joke etc, it was quite interesting to see there reaction when I played them The Blues. They seemed very impressed and suddenly eager to hear more material by the new lineup.

I don't really want to bring this up in case it goes off topic but a large part of people not liking the new guys was image, some obviously feel that it's not GNR with just Axl but I think others were less accepting because of the image, one guitarist was playing with a kfc bucket on his head and another looked like a dying Marilyn Manson, it's hardly the bad boy rock n roll band that once ruled the world is it.

On the positive side with BH now gone and Robin from recent photos no longer going with the goth look people might respect the new guys a bit more than they did. We know the music is already good and hopefully with the new tour looking less like a freak show people will be more willing to give the music the chance it deserves ?:peace:

You got to admit though, if you were watching the VMAs that year not realising the whole band had new members you would be pretty shocked at the sight of Buckethead and Robin Finck.

I think the music speaks for itself but unfortunately some people don't listen when they see a televised performance. Once the band is getting some radio play things will be different.

You should ask this question when the album is out. Things may be different then. At the moment these 'people' you talk about only have bad quality demo's or live tracks to go on.

I think a lot of people saw GN'R as a really cool looking rock band with the music to match (myself included), so I think Axl's new music will have to be REALLY good for people to get past the current appearance of the band.

People will get past the image now that fuckit head is out..... the others all look normal enough.....

I think the 2002 line-up was a shock for a lot of people, lots of people weren't prepared to see such a massive changement, it was brutal, maybe Axl pushed the enveloppe a little bit "too far" for most of people, including his most die-hard fans, you know, a shredder, a goth, in a band that used to be a Classic Rock n' Roll band, wow.... what a difference! it was really "too much"...I just hope in 2006 they will come back a little bit more to the Bluesy Roots of what Rock Music is... you know.... let's not forget the bluesy element....That's what Rock n' Roll is about. It's the base, the soul and the heart of this music.

Without the blues, there is no Rock.

Me too. But this isn't the right band for that.

its nothing to do with image or sound

the sound of the new band is fine (different from original Guns, still good), they are all proficient musicians

Its just not right to some of us. Guns n Roses weren't just some run of the mill band that came and went. They were one of the all time greats. So to just replace all these key members who brought something unique to the sound and legend with hired hands, and then continue to claim it is still Guns, is hard for many to accept.

It would be very similar to if Robert Plant hired a guitarist, bass player and drummer and called it Led Zepplin. Or if Paul McCartney hired some guys and called it the Beatles.

Would you accept that?

Anyway, this is an old argument

its not music or image its name

Its different because in those other bands the members didnt quit and get replaced by new members, that is what happened in guns n roses. A member left and they were replaced. As for the question, a lot of people hate Axl Rose and no matter how good the songs are some will bash them reguardless.

Its nothing to do with hating Axl, its to do with loving original GNR (Axl included)

As far as band members quitting go, thats always a very dicey excuse if you ask me. Alot of people would argue that they were marginalised to the point of being forced to quit.

For example, if you were working in a job, and a member of your team made your job so difficult through inflexibility, exclusion, communication or made it so unpleasant etc.. that you felt no other option but to quit

Other reasons of course would be shoddy televised performances - case in point VMAS 2002

Everyone I know who seldom listens to GNR always says to me "Oh, but it's just Axl right. Is the music even any good. They're still around?"

I think the new Guns and Roses should be judged exclusivley on the music alone. I mean, granted, we here are interested in the band, but for those who no longer listen to GNR, hand them a copy of IRS and TWAT and make them listen to it, and lie to them and tell them they are old studio demos from long ago that never made it to the album. 100% sure they'll believe you.

I for one love the new GNR, but see them as being very different from the old GNR. I don't think Slash and company could ever have produced "Better." I could see them doing "The Blues" though

You're right cause if they were still in the band there would be the dirty blues element still in the band. No matter what some people wont accept GnR with out Slash and company. Plus its cool to hate Axl Rose anyway so you Axl will never win.

Unfortunately, I think making just good music, or even great music is not enough.
You always need the "X factor" to be more than just a good band. You need this incredible human chemistry and combo between the bandmembers, the magic thing, the old band had it and that's why they became larger than life, but the new band doesn't (even if I like them, I have to recognize the old band had more chemistry all together as "a band").

really?

No offence, but I fail to see how this statement is anything other than nonsense.

I think people that "hate" Axl do so for very tangible reasons - such as: no-shows, delays, riots, lame performances, temper tantrums, marginalisation of other band members etc.. rather than some conspiracy against Axl or because it's "cool" to do so

Yeah I agree. When i saw them in 02 it seemed to me that it was Axl Rose and a house band. Maybe not that bad but I didnt feel chemistry between them all. Maybe that has changed.. Maybe not. As long as the music is good.. I will be happy.

Nah.. its the new breed metal fans I am talking about. You can find them on blabbermouth and sites like that.. Axl is seems to be one of those guys that is just hated for some reason or another.. At least thats how I see it.

Interesting...after watching many bootleged performances of the 2002 tour I was thinking "wow, the band doesn't even seem into it."

I agree, I don't think there was much chemistry with the band. The only time I ever saw Axl act like it was Guns and Roses and not Axl and the boys, was RIR 3 when he introduced the band before he played Chinese Democracy

Watch the new songs they wrote together, they all esp axl rock out to them more and seem into it much more.

Really? I'll watch my bootleg of the NY Shows then.

Tit for tit, tat for tat, I favor the "new gnr" over the "old gnr"? How come?? Because I think overall they are a bit more talented then they were with the original lineup or during the Illusion years! If you compared each member by the instrument.

Drums---? Adler/Sorum vs Brain---->? Brain
Bass-----Duff vs Tommy----> Tommy
Lead Guitar-----Slash vs Bucket/Finck----->Slash
Rhythm------Izzy/Gilby vs Fortus/Huge---->Fortus/Huge

Final Score New Gnr 3-Old Gnr 1

New GNR WINS!

Just my opinion, take it or leave it

Oh yeah by the way, who cares about a bands image?  Its the MUSIC that counts!  And the music sounds AWESOME!!!

It's a combination of several factors.  First, people that don't like NuGNR are judgmental on a limited basis of knowledge - which is like deciding to buy a car without driving it.  Second, image means nothing, but to some people, image is everything.  I hate the word's image and style.  Some punk fucking fagot - that wears black clothes and black eyeliner, with black nail polish on the fingernails standing on the corner, acting as if he was deprived of some form of parental nourishment as a child - invented the new meaning of the word "style."  It has since been banished from my vocabulary.  At any rate, the music is in fact different than vintage GNR, but for all intents and purposes, we have no basis to draw conclusions.  The Blues sounds as if it was written by the original bad boys, but the likes of Rhiad and Silkworms are clearly a newer product.  It's hard to say one, way or another, what the future fanbase will look for.  Hopefully, their expectations aren't derived from the original band's precedent. 

They hate the image. No other possibility, because this lineup sounds better than any of the previous lineups. In fact, this GNR lineup is a dream team.

just check out robins reaction right after scom at msg or watch a performance of pc and ull see this band rock out...or the new songs..

what exactely do u want these guys to do onstage?? the same people that complain they play the old songs are the same people who complain about the members not rocking out and looking bored on stage. And I think most of you are blind or dont have the boots. Cause I have about5-7 vids of the new band and for th emost part the band rocks the fuck out onstage. Especially duiring the new songs. And songs like PC. HEck at Albany they were playing soccer on stage with Buckets toys.

do u guys want them to hold hand on stage and say look we are  tight? I mean cmon. Thevve done nothing different than what the old band did onstage except that they dont use the mic and talk. But maybe that will change as time goes on. When they tour on the album is when I will completely judge them.....till them blame Axl

I don't think it's an image thing. It's a music thing. And by this i mean there is no music from this lineup officially released. To the average person, if they even know about the lineup, it means nothing because they have produced no results. I love the new songs i've heard, and i love the new lineup, i think they are all great musicians, and all are professional in how they approach the band. But an album needs to be released with this lineup for the general public to be accepting of it. They can't keep playing AFD+3 new songs. If this is really a band, and an active, songwriting band that is not around for nostalgia/money like kiss, and most likely motley crue are, then we need material. The songs are obviously there, and so is name recognition. People are only waiting for a reason to care again. I talk about them and they are like gnr are still around??? Then i play the leaks and the live tracks, and they are all impressed. All we and the public needs is Chinese Democracy NOW.

honestly, at first, bucket scared the shit out of me. he still kinda does that :-)
but i think he scared away many potential fans, and that might still be an issue for some, even after he left.

and the music? not many "neutral" fans have heard it, besides oh my god (i like! like a lot!), and that's not what people expected, many wanted "sweet child no 2" or something...

we don't even know the full lineup yet. Axl said it's "most" of the people from the 2002 tour. In all honesty, we're just assuming most of the people are still going to be there, like Brain and Stinson...who knows?

I'm sure people who dislike the new GnR do so for very different reasons or a combination of reasons. 
- only Axl is still in the band
- Axl's attitude that he is GnR
- their music is a departure from the sound that made them who they are
- poor live performances
- not showing up for concerts
- waiting 13 years for an album
- nobody knpws who the official line-up is
- some people just hate Axl's voice

Hell, who even knows what GnR's image is.  Nobody's seen them together since 2002. 

Now I'm not saying all these are true.  I'm sure people have there own reasons to dislike GnR.  The people I went to see the 2002 Philly show don't like them because they are not the original band and Axl is treating it like it is and the fact they didn't show up, therefore putting themselves in harms way while trying to get off the floor.

i like some of the new stuff, but id lose the techno stuff, image wise i hate new GN'R wxcept axl but ive lernt to except it, i like some new stuff, but i dont like the old tunes being played, IMO the old stuff isnt as good with this band

you hit the nail right on the head... Everyone would be screaming bloody murder if other bands did shit like this.. Wether people quit or got fired it's not relevant, it's about the key members being gone..

The only thing I dont like about the "new" GNR is that they dont really have any cohesivness about them. The old band looked like they were a band. The new band has so many different looking characters, or at least they did in 02. I guess we will see shortly. The most important thing though, the music, is great however.

Agreed. But still, I do think it is image based. It's the only reasonable explanation, their music is fuckin awesome!

I don't think it's the look, it's about loving something that was that you did volunterally, now trying to love a new band that you didn't pick.. same shit happens with velvet revolver, most of the people not into it are anti ex members.. You know if axl was behind slither or something everyone would be like good rocker.. people are biase plain and simple

I didn't like oh my god in nov 99 and I had no clue who was in teh band

 I always get a kick out of these boards because people act as though Axl Rose is still some revelant person. The guy is a joke. He looks like a douche, sounds like douche, acts like a douche. He makes emo tunes about some chick who dumped him like 14 years ago & performed possibly the most embarrassing number I have ever witnessed on TV at the '02 VMA's. The only thing he has going for himself is the fact that he pretty much does nothing & that allows some people to imagine he might still be something. It's not '88 or '91 anymore people, the guy is nothing like what he once was. He's hired some session players & calls it GNR, which is such a joke considering what GNR means to the American public. Tommy Stinson used to mock him onstage when he was in The Mats' back in the early '90's, now he gets paid to hangout with Botaxl. Most of the rationally thinking world already knows Axl sucks, when will you all?

I'll let someone else answer back to this  : ok:

i agree on alot of what you have said.if facts are facts axl is a joke with what he has done, if he went in his own name, it would b better.but i do think if he got back with the old guys great music can be made again!!!the new stuff is ok, but when u say its ok, its really just shit, not groundbreaking like they were

when their is no new great, groundbreaking bands to grab on to, you reach for the past and thats what happens on this board!

I think a major reason for keeping the name is so Axl can keep playing the old stuff, thus delaying Chinese Democracy further. I've heard people critisice VR because they play three old GnR songs, and saying Scott Weiland shouldn't be singing it if he doesn't like Axl, but the same people think it's ok for Axl to play a set consisting 80% of old GnR stuff, largely written by people Axl no longer likes. Why? Because Axl has the name. It annoys me to hear people say NuGnR are a way better band live than VR. They play 80% old stuff for god's sake. The true litmus test is if and when newGnR play a set of mostly new songs. If Slash Duff and Matt got a high-pitched singer like Sebastian Bach and played 80% old stuff, they could call the band Skidmarks, and I would to still pay to see that just as much as Axl's band. To see Slash and Duff play the shit out of the old stuff would be as big a draw as Axl doing it. If Axl's current band was just W. Axl Rose or some new name, they probably would be critisised for playing the old stuff. Personally, I'm glad Axl is playing mostly older stuff because I never got a chance to see the original band doing that, and seeing Axl do it would be amazing. But I don't think the new band deserve credit for being able to Sweet Child O' Mine. I can play it for god's sakes. He has to start playing more new stuff to get as much respect and authenticity as VR. Personally, I can see him introducing a couple of new tracks live on TV at Rock In Rio, or maybe debut them at the Madrid concert.

I know a lot of people don't like VR, but a lot do. I love Contraband and they wouldn't have achieved what they have without a good album.

Just a couple of more points on the original topic. I think the newGnR music is great but Axl really let himself down with some stuff like Oh My God, Riyadh and Silkworms. If you believe that people critisise Axl just because of who he is, then listen to those songs and you might discover a new reason. Hating Axl just because of his image is rediculous however. None of the original band were exactly "nice guys." Hence,  I'm got going to get drawn into who has the moral high ground between Axl and Slash except to say "Nice Boys Don't Play Rock n' Roll".

Eh, Izzy wrote 50% of the original stuff, including many of their best songs. We haven't heard anything Fortus has written for GnR, and Paul Huge sucks, man. And until Tommy writes a song as good as Paradise City or It's So Easy, Duff will always be the no.1 gnr bassist.

They've done nothing different - that's exactly the point. They're a tribute band. That's a problem. The only thing they haven't done which the original band done is release an album and play a set almost full of new stuff. I think a lot of people you claim are anti-new GnR are actually just more open-minded. I certainly am. I just think its rediculous to assume the new album will be better than anything else until its released. The fact is the new band haven't proven themselves and won't do so until an album arrives. Yes they can rock out on stage but most people playing those classic songs could rock out. They're rockin' songs. Writing, recording and finishing a quality studio album is a whole different ball game. I have nothing against the newGnR and really hope they succeed. But they haven't proven themselves yet. Of the songs we heard so far there are some potential classics, but that's not enough. I've nothing against their image, their ability to play the old songs and certainly nothing against Axl or any of the members. I just have something against people who say they are better than the old band, best band ever, etc., when they haven't even released an album yet. It's just premature and overly presumptious.

What music?
The New GN'R hasn't released any new music.

I don't care if it's the new band or the old band I just think the new demos and leaks suck compared to the old stuff GNR has released.

Would you stop playing stupid?

You know what he meant.