Unlike so many tards out there, I have never had a problem with the Queen + Paul Rodgers name, and wouldn't have cared much if they had just stayed with Queen. But for all of you whiners out there, consider a real joke in cashing in on a famous name...
Guns N' Roses.
Can someone explain to me why the Guns old band members Slash, Duff and Matt Sorum team up with Scott Weiland(namecheck?) of STP and call themselves Velvet Revolver, yet Axl Rose hires all new players surrounding him, and yet maintains the band name of Guns N' Roses???
That is an example of name usage that is truly ridiculous.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
he owns the name. it's his legally. therefore he is guns n roses. doesn't mean i agree with it though...
They ARE Guns N' Roses because Slash, Duff etc QUIT (Matt was fired) and Axl wanted to continue the band so therefore replaced them. It's as simple as that. I've seen the new band twice, and they are far more accomplished than the old.
Any definitive date yet on Chinese Democracy?
Agreed.
You wouldn't be thinking that the Axl GnR was pathetic if you saw them live.
What an incredible show. Second best concert of 2006 for me, the first being Queen!
You wouldn't be thinking that the Axl GnR was pathetic if you saw them live.
What an incredible show. Second best concert of 2006 for me, the first being Queen!
i saw the last show on the canadian tour, of the new guns n roses
while it was good, there was about an hour of extra stuff that just made the show go to long.
the guitar solos, and piano solos were like 10 minutes each and were just not very good. You have to be a very good player to keep a solo going for that long and keep it interesting.
plus axle kept dissapearing, he would dissapear backstage in the middle of songs and sets, and everytime i wondered if he was going to come back.
the classics were amazing, the new songs were mostly unintelagable.
yes he owns the name, but THAT is not guns n roses.
while it was good, there was about an hour of extra stuff that just made the show go to long.
the guitar solos, and piano solos were like 10 minutes each and were just not very good. You have to be a very good player to keep a solo going for that long and keep it interesting.
plus axle kept dissapearing, he would dissapear backstage in the middle of songs and sets, and everytime i wondered if he was going to come back.
the classics were amazing, the new songs were mostly unintelagable.
yes he owns the name, but THAT is not guns n roses.
Phill The Thrill......i know this is a Queen Site, but i agree with you, i saw GNR at Manchester 2006, they were very good, although they pissed alot of people off by not coming on stage till gone 11.00pm!....the guitar solos were too many and way too long, and like you, i wondered why Axl kept disappearing off stage during the songs, then running back on in his normal demented way....he is an excellent frontman though!
Freddie is angry.
And I haven't bought anything to do with Paul Rodgers.
And I haven't bought anything to do with Paul Rodgers.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]andyhwood485 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Phill The Thrill......i know this is a Queen Site, but i agree with you, i saw GNR at Manchester 2006, they were very good, although they pissed alot of people off by not coming on stage till gone 11.00pm!....the guitar solos were too many and way too long, and like you, i wondered why Axl kept disappearing off stage during the songs, then running back on in his normal demented way....he is an excellent frontman though![/QUOTE]
Same at Wembley. He was reportedly suffering from dehydration or something, and so needed to be checked out. But he never came on for Paradise City as the final song, and left Sebastian Bach to sing it!!!!
Also, they were very late coming on. That might have been planned, but there was a long gap between SB / Bullet for my Valentine and the main set. not good really.
So I wonder was he really ill, or is it more of the same Axl crap?
The concert was ok, but I can't believe that it was better than if Slash etc had been in the band. I haven't watched my UYI tour videos recently, but I remember them being excellent. I enjoyed the new band in concert, but agree on the solos being too indulgent and not "interesting" enough
Same at Wembley. He was reportedly suffering from dehydration or something, and so needed to be checked out. But he never came on for Paradise City as the final song, and left Sebastian Bach to sing it!!!!
Also, they were very late coming on. That might have been planned, but there was a long gap between SB / Bullet for my Valentine and the main set. not good really.
So I wonder was he really ill, or is it more of the same Axl crap?
The concert was ok, but I can't believe that it was better than if Slash etc had been in the band. I haven't watched my UYI tour videos recently, but I remember them being excellent. I enjoyed the new band in concert, but agree on the solos being too indulgent and not "interesting" enough
I saw G n R twice in the90's, plus the Freddie tribute concert, and they were awesome every time. Problem is Slash, Matt etc need Axl & Axl needs them to be a truly great band. Shame it aint gonna happen. Velvet Revolver are good but not great and Axl's ever changing G n R line up will never be the band who recorded AFD and USI 1&2.
As for Chinese Democracy, if it was a truly great album as the people involved suggest then why has it not seen light of day? The latest is that it will be released later this spring but don't hold your breath.
As for Chinese Democracy, if it was a truly great album as the people involved suggest then why has it not seen light of day? The latest is that it will be released later this spring but don't hold your breath.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME].*.Messenger Of Leah.*. wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Freddie is angry.
And I haven't bought anything to do with Paul Rodgers.[/QUOTE]
Actually, Freddie is dead. . . And the prognosis is that he'll remain that way for the foreseeable future.
I'm sure everyone is crushed that you won't buy anything to do with Paul. Even if all the "rabid" Queen "fans" boycotted the new record, that would barely dent the sales.
And I haven't bought anything to do with Paul Rodgers.[/QUOTE]
Actually, Freddie is dead. . . And the prognosis is that he'll remain that way for the foreseeable future.
I'm sure everyone is crushed that you won't buy anything to do with Paul. Even if all the "rabid" Queen "fans" boycotted the new record, that would barely dent the sales.
Axl gave the rest of the band an ultimatem (sp) in round about '92, basically forcing the band to sign the name and rights over to him or the band was over then and there.
That is one crazy bloke. So yeah thats why he still has the name, and can do all the songs.
On the subject of Queen+PR i love it :)
That is one crazy bloke. So yeah thats why he still has the name, and can do all the songs.
On the subject of Queen+PR i love it :)
"Axl gave the rest of the band an ultimatem (sp) in round about '92, basically forcing the band to sign the name and rights over to him or the band was over then and there.
That is one crazy bloke. So yeah thats why he still has the name, and can do all the songs."
I agree with the above and what's more last year he had a secret meeting with Slash and I think Duff about reforming GnR but he wanted them to give up ALL songwriting credits to all past and future GnR material. End of meeting and end of reunion!
That is one crazy bloke. So yeah thats why he still has the name, and can do all the songs."
I agree with the above and what's more last year he had a secret meeting with Slash and I think Duff about reforming GnR but he wanted them to give up ALL songwriting credits to all past and future GnR material. End of meeting and end of reunion!
Personally I don't care about Axl's choice to use the name, I just think it's ridiculous, but not all that harmful. Most know it's not the original band, and if they didn't, they'd be getting Axl's irreplaceable voice and a live show containing many of the old GNR songs, so it's not too dishonest. But what's ridiculous to me is that even if the new GNR is better, it's totally different people supporting Axl. How much is lost by replacing the non Axl elements?
This always varies in this situation in how much the band changes. For instance, when Def Leppard lost Pete Willis and replaced him with Phl Collen, the change was minor. They went from Willis's loud, wild guitar input to Collen's cleaner, more produced sound with tighter, more intertwined guitar flashes and solos. The change was subtle, and I think for the best. However, when they went to Vivian Campbell after Steve Clark died, the band lost everything greatest about them. They still had Eliott's amazing voice, but the #1 standout element of Def Leppard for me was their powerful guitar riffs which were all Steve Clark. VC is awesome, but he couldn't come close to replacing Clark's endless ability to create little riffs and sound bytes throughout their songs. So are they really Def Leppard?
My only complaint on this topic is that using the original name for a new party is compromising a unique band identity for commercial gain by capitalizing on falsely connecting the new group in people's minds with the old group they know. The only good argument for using the old name is in action of advertising the old band's accomplishments and songs will be revisited by the new, similar entity.
I'd say Queen's decision to include the Queen name with a + reference leading to the replacement vocalist, is by far the best, most clever way to go. They cover all ends honorably and wisely, and most of all I like how even that little bit of difference in adding to the Queen name, somehow even with Queen in it, it comes across as a seperate entity. I think of Q + PR as a new band.
This always varies in this situation in how much the band changes. For instance, when Def Leppard lost Pete Willis and replaced him with Phl Collen, the change was minor. They went from Willis's loud, wild guitar input to Collen's cleaner, more produced sound with tighter, more intertwined guitar flashes and solos. The change was subtle, and I think for the best. However, when they went to Vivian Campbell after Steve Clark died, the band lost everything greatest about them. They still had Eliott's amazing voice, but the #1 standout element of Def Leppard for me was their powerful guitar riffs which were all Steve Clark. VC is awesome, but he couldn't come close to replacing Clark's endless ability to create little riffs and sound bytes throughout their songs. So are they really Def Leppard?
My only complaint on this topic is that using the original name for a new party is compromising a unique band identity for commercial gain by capitalizing on falsely connecting the new group in people's minds with the old group they know. The only good argument for using the old name is in action of advertising the old band's accomplishments and songs will be revisited by the new, similar entity.
I'd say Queen's decision to include the Queen name with a + reference leading to the replacement vocalist, is by far the best, most clever way to go. They cover all ends honorably and wisely, and most of all I like how even that little bit of difference in adding to the Queen name, somehow even with Queen in it, it comes across as a seperate entity. I think of Q + PR as a new band.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Drowse1 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"Axl gave the rest of the band an ultimatem (sp) in round about '92, basically forcing the band to sign the name and rights over to him or the band was over then and there.
That is one crazy bloke. So yeah thats why he still has the name, and can do all the songs."
I agree with the above and what's more last year he had a secret meeting with Slash and I think Duff about reforming GnR but he wanted them to give up ALL songwriting credits to all past and future GnR material. End of meeting and end of reunion![/QUOTE]
how can he expect them to give up their rights to the old recordings/songs? I'm sure he's talented - November Rain is a fantastic song for one thing - but why does he have to be such an arse? Why can't he see that no-one would do that? why can't he see the benefit in their input?
I wouldn't be surprised if the real reason for the 10yrs+ chinese democracy album is because there aren't the other band members giving him the reality check / final input which he needs to "finish" the material. He must keep tampering with the mixes or recordings, whereas if it was a proper group, there would be some discussion and compromise which would lead to a final cut.
A real shame, really, because although his voice is truly strange, within the context of G'n'R, it was perfect (IMO)
That is one crazy bloke. So yeah thats why he still has the name, and can do all the songs."
I agree with the above and what's more last year he had a secret meeting with Slash and I think Duff about reforming GnR but he wanted them to give up ALL songwriting credits to all past and future GnR material. End of meeting and end of reunion![/QUOTE]
how can he expect them to give up their rights to the old recordings/songs? I'm sure he's talented - November Rain is a fantastic song for one thing - but why does he have to be such an arse? Why can't he see that no-one would do that? why can't he see the benefit in their input?
I wouldn't be surprised if the real reason for the 10yrs+ chinese democracy album is because there aren't the other band members giving him the reality check / final input which he needs to "finish" the material. He must keep tampering with the mixes or recordings, whereas if it was a proper group, there would be some discussion and compromise which would lead to a final cut.
A real shame, really, because although his voice is truly strange, within the context of G'n'R, it was perfect (IMO)