Talk:Guns N' Roses/Archive 2

Song leak?
http://idolator.com/tunes/mp3/leak-of-the-year-guns-n-roses-democracy-has-finally-arrived-238270.php

I became aware of this site wich has a song called Better. It seems to be from the Chinese Democracy album. Hrundi Bakshi 01:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrested?
It says in the last paragraph of the Chinese Democracy section that someone was arrested for posting IRS on his website. Now call me crazy, but I'm thinking that we should remove this paragraph because there are no citations, and they very inccorectly spelt Guns N' Roses as "guns and roses" and also has a number of grammer errors, so how can we even trust any of the paragraph to be true?

- No one was arrested for this AFAIK. Some cease and desist orders were sent - that's very different from an arrest.

Discography Question
Why is 'Live ?!*@ Like A Suicide' in the albums list when it was quite clearly an EP? 'Lies' is also called an EP in the album list. Surely a new section for EPs would be appropriate? Thinking about it I own a 'civil war EP', there are probably quite a few GNR EPs out there for listing.

.... I agree. According to Wikipedia, "Usually, an album has eight or more tracks (anywhere between 25–80 minutes), a single has one to three (5–15 minutes), and an EP four to seven (or around 15–25 minutes)." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_play)

So GN'R Lies is definitely an album, not an EP. 194.126.209.1 10:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Have moved the Discography section to a new page to enable this article to conform to the specified page size of 32 Kb. At present the article is 42 Kb long. Will231982 13:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Will231982

Chris Pittman
Pittman is the keyboards and effects man on the band. This position was previously held in hte band by Teddy "Zig Zag" Andreadis, but he was not considered an official member, even though he played in the Use Your Illusion Tour and appeared in the band's videos. A couple of websites say that Pittman is an official member, however since 2001, no official word from the band or it's management regarding Pittman has been released. Therefore, until Rose or his management realease this information, Chris Pittman cannot be considered an official member. <> 18:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Teddy Zig Zag was not a band member, however, Chris Pitman is the official synth palyer of the band and is part of it. He is introduced by Rose at every show and he appeared in the band shoot at Download.--Wwb 19:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Teddy was also introduced by Axl at shows. The key diffrence is that Teddy was only a touring member, he did not work with the band on any of their albums, whereas it's almost certian that Chris has worked on Chinese Democracy. Although prehaps the amendment should wait until the album comes out to confirm this. Danikat 15:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Name
There appears to be consensus above that Guns n' Roses is the correct way to write the band's name. Why was this moved to have a capital N? Tuf-Kat 18:47, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * , etc. &mdash;siro &chi; [[User:Siroxo|o ]]

Er... where did you get an idea of consensus on lowercase n'? On all Guns N' Roses albums it is spelled with capital N' 194.126.209.1 10:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's because all the albums use all capital letters, so using that theory their name would be termed as GUNS N' ROSES. I remember reading that the lowercase 'n' is the proper use.

Abbreviation
Adding an apostrophe to an acronym or appreviation kind of kills the whole point of having one in the first place. Please quit adding the apostrophe to "GNR". I am aware that on GNR Lies it is printed as "GN'R" but this is the only place that it is referred to as such, and on the official website it does not even have GNR, it has G&R. I think it's better to keep "GNR" as it usually printed and said than use the apostrophe.

I think it is up to the band to decide what is the correct spelling of their name including its abbreviation. Whenever Guns N' Roses use abbreviation GN'R there's always an apostrophe. 194.126.209.1 14:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Classification
How should GNR be categorized? Different edits have described it has a hair metal band, a hard rock band, and a heavy metal band. Personally, I feel that heavy metal is the more accurate classification. Tkessler 00:18, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Heavy Metal, as Hair Metal (which verges on being more correct) is but a subgenre. Brother Dysk 02:55, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

i think guns'n'roses would be classified as sleaze rock. other examples of sleaze rock: l.a. guns and faster pussycat.

in fact, tracii guns has played with guns'n'rose, l.a. guns, and faster pussycat, though with faster pussycat only as a touring guitarist and only briefly.Gringo300 12:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They were a metal band. They sort of killed the "hair" aesthetic, so I don't think the current classification as "hair metal" is accurate. Except for in the Jungle video, I guess, for obvious reasons. Tempshill 21:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Guns N' Roses is a definitive hard rock band. They were not metal, metal bands in the 1980s were bands like Metallica and Anthrax.  They were not hair metal, hair metal bands in the 1980s were bands like Poison.  GNR was rock with elements of punk, blues, and metal.  Use Your Illusions hair metal?  Please. - user:defunkt 23:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only thing hair metal about GNR is the video of welcome to the jungle. How can anybody in their right mind classify the use your illusion albums as hair metal....and even worse, the type of music they're are doing now which has industrial sound? I think which should leave hard rock as their clasification.<> 00:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Guys, I don't think it's neccessary to classify everything and stamp it with a label. I mean GNR is really heavy rock but their sound varies. Just listen to GNR LIES or compare UYI I and II. It's like trying to classify Jimi Hendrix. Was he blues rock? Pyschedelic rock? Just classic rock? Who knows, more importantly who cares. In this case, labels do less to help and more to interfere. If someone reads this article and it says "hair metal" they'll associate Gun N' Roses with the wrong crowd and won't understand their sound. If we simply call them "metal" we get the same outcome. Although I favor no label, we of course have to say something about them, so I especially like "hard rock". That leaves some leeway on what they are and seems a little more loose than metal, and a lot more lose than "hair metal". We can hit a comnpromise and at least build on that part about them being a new band with a new sound and we can say that they can be most described as a conglomeration of hard rock/(hair) metal while the new band has taken a more hard rock/industrial style. --Elysianfields 16:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

This settles it: Straight from Axl himself on being questioned about being a heavy metal band, from an interview in '87 after a short show, "We don't consider ourselves a metal band. We consider ourselves a rock and roll band. Rock and roll covers everything, and we try to cover as many things as we can learn to play." Happy I found this, pretty much what I said last time. So let's keep it Rock n' Roll folks--Elysianfields 05:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

GN'R is band that mixes glam rock and hard rock. --80.186.67.158 05:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

GN'R are NOT a hard rock band! They are a heavy metal band!

I swear i'm going to reach through the monitor and fucking strangle to death the next person who changes it to heavy metal. AXL ROSE HIMSELF DECLARED THAT GUNS N' ROSES IS A ROCK BAND NOT A METAL BAND. He does not want to be classified with the limited and closeminded genre of metal he wants to be known as a rock band. Leave it the hell alone

I can't believe this. This is a stupid edit war. First it was the dude saying they were hair metal, and then now its the dude saying they are heavy metal. Anyway, heavy and hair metal are both subgenres of HARD ROCK! Axl Rose said that he doesn't want his band labeled under one specific sub-genre. So, please STOP IT, leave it at hard rock. If you are going to change it to heavy or hair metal, at least make an argument here!<> 00:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This is my opinion: GnR's a darn hard rock band. What makes them heavy metal? Not much, really. Sure, some of their songs have metal riffs, but that doesn't prove much. Besides, hard rock emcompasses a wider range of sounds and styles. Which is exactly what the user above me said. Instead of discussing and trying to rip each other's eyes out, pin them down to something that everyone can agree with...what about just heavy rock? 80.58.6.172 09:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Or somebody could start citing sources, and explain in the article who believes what about GNR. Tuf-Kat 16:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Im gonna keep changin it to heavy metal until you stop changin it to hard rock!


 * Well then you have no idea how wikipedia works and you should probably be banned. And I assure, I will continue changing it to hard rock, since it is the majority decision of the users that have to do with this article. At least make an ARGUMENT of why you think it is heavy metal.<> 21:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * To be honest with you, heavy metal itself is a subgenre of hard rock. GNR is as much as a metal band as Metallica. The genres GNR play IMO include hair metal, glam metal, punk, hardcore punk, and punk metal. CoolKatt number 99999

An argument eh? Just listen to tracks such Mr Brownstone, Its So Easy, Dont Damn Me, Double Talkin Jive, Back Off Bitch,Your Crazy(AFD version) and Crash Diet. Thats Heavy Metal. As for your comment on "you dont know how wikipedia works", i actually do. And as for "you should probably be banned", i'm on AOL, and so have a roaming IP, which means the only way to ban me would be to ban all of AOL.


 * LOL..I can't believe you are going to use songs as a basis to your argument. Listen then to November Rain, Patience, Since I dont Have You, Estraged, Madagascar, oh My God, Chinese Democracy.....NONE of them are Heavy Metal......they are blues, punk, power ballad, on and on...that's why they cannot be classfied under only ONE sub-genre. <>22:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

You say you cant belive that im using songs as my argument...and then YOU go and do the same!LMFAO. As for punk, blues, and power balled...BULLSHIT. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.213.8.227 (talk &bull; contribs) Sep 13, 2005.


 * Anon, please stop making personal attacks and using profanity. We need to try to keep this place civil and not use this as a platform for attacks. Besides, kindly sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ) for all of us to know what you wrote and answer accordingly. Thanks! --Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

When did i make a personal attack? Anyway, all what i said in that post was true. He laughed at my argument, and then did the same himself, that was the basis of my argument. As for the word 'b******t', i had every right to use it considering what he said.172.203.56.137 22:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for signing. I suggest you read Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy for clarification. On the other hand, you do have the right to use profanity (at least here, in America, I don't know where you are) but you have a moral obligation to respect your peers and colleagues, I don't see anything that warrants your aggresion. Here in Wikipedia that language (LMFAO, etc...) is considered very offensive and frowned upon. I would like to encourage you to sign up for an account and to express your points of view on a more socially acceptable manner. You'll find other editors more willing to cooperate and compromise with you. It would also help since we'll be able to move this conversation away from this page, where obviously it doesn't belong anymore. Feel free to continue it on my talk page. Thanks for your understanding and please continue helping us be better. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 22:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

YOUR talk page? Dont get it. Anyway whats wrong with LM**A(i thought id better put the *'s in, seein as even LM**O offends you...). I'm in england btw, and yes we do have the right to use 'profanity'. As for compromising with the other editor's, im being 'monitered' or somethin, so that wont work. How do you comprimise on hard rock to heavy metal anyway?172.203.56.137 22:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Right next to my signature you will see a link that says "Talk". It's used to communicate with other people in a non-specific environment (like this, where we should be discussing GNR). I appreciate you realizing that profanity offends me, especially when applied undeservingly. Nobody is monitoring YOU, since your IP address changes that would be impossible, but we do monitor this page for those changes. In RE to your last comment, there are several ways to compromise but I personally don't see a will on your part to do it. I also encourage you to read Wikipedia policies, since they will give you insight as to how we usually handle things amongst us. (Like the Talk page example) Thanks. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason I used songs examples in my argument its' to demonstrate that Guns N Roses has many many songs that do not fit into the heavy metal category. On the same note, they DO have songs that are heavy metal. But, this doesnt prove that they are ONLY a heavy metal band. I just don't see why you find it so important to classify them under ONE sub-genre, when the founder and practicly OWNER, (axl rose)of GNR, DOES NOT consider his band to be heavy metal.

Please dude,I am not trying to change you opinion. Im just saying that the consesus of the majority editors working on this article, myself included,have determined, as of this writing, that they should be classified under hard rock, since it is a comprimise: Heavy metal and hair metal are both sub-genres of hard rock. So, what Im askingis that you stop changing their classification in the main article just because it is YOUR opinion. Take into consideration the opinions of the rest of us. <> 00:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Heavy metal a sub-genre of hard rock? Please. Axl was not the founder of GNR, for the record, the name Guns n Roses was a fusion of LA Guns, and Hollywood Rose. Your right, Axl Rose doesnt consider GNR to be heavy metal, NOR does he consider them to be hard rock, in an interview he said Guns were 'rock'. Not hard rock, just ROCK, which would be acceptable in my eyes for their classification in the article; but then, i dont own this site... Wait a minute, part of the article is missing.


 * I re-added the missing section.....take a look at this article>>>>HARD ROCK....read it and post your thoughts here. I am willing to accept rock and roll as their classification in the article...of course if we reach a consensus with the rest of the guys.<> 15:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Rock & Roll seems to be what Axl wanted, maybe that's what we should do... He should know better, right? :) --Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Dont mean to start an argument again...but GNR were never in the list of hard rock acts before, one of you has clearly just added them recently. They're also in the hair metal list, this makes no sense. Superdude309 16:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Another idea: classify them as hard rock/heavy metal. CoolKatt number 99999 01:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should be using anyhting other than "Rock and Roll", since apparently it's what Axl said they were. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

So Coolkatt, you want them classified as rock/metal, and you also want them on the hair metal bands list? BTW it has Hollywood Rose instead of Guns N Roses, but clicking on the HR link takes you to the GNR article. Should there not be a seperate article for Hollywood Rose, considering Hollywood Rose also had Tracii Guns and Robert Gardner? Superdude309

I just want everybody to be happy, PS the "K" is capitalized, and GNR did play some hair metal, they were even formed from parts of 2 hair metal bands (Hollywood Rose and LA Guns). Also, the genre tree for hair metal: Rock music->Hard rock->Heavy metal->Hair metal. People have also cited GNR as adding new elements to hair metal, and today they can also be classified as classic rock. PS I maintain a list of bands I consider classic rock in my user page, feel free to check it out, and suggest any other bands to put on the list on my talk page. CoolKatt number 99999 19:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * PS as I said, they play a mix of thrash metal, hair metal, punk, hard rock, & blues.

Classic Rock? B*ll*cks. And whats up with that incorrect hair metal tree?


 * It's true, they can be heard on a number of classic rock stations, PS the hair metal tree is not incorrect. CoolKatt number 99999 00:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * We are going off-topic here. We should simply come to an agreement on which main GENRE GNR should be classified. They DO have some hair metal material, they DO have some hard rock material, they DO have some heavy metal material, they DO have industrial metal material, they DO have punk material. So, since they have cover so many musical styles, they CAN'T be classified under only one SUB-genre. However, they should be classified under one main GENRE....my vote is for rock n'roll, since all of the above mentioned are sub genres of rock n'roll. More importantly, it should be rock n' roll since is what Axl Rose, member, owner has established. <> 21:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 21:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I say just 'rock' - Superdude309


 * If you keep calling everything "rock," you may as well consider everything as "music." Bands like Nile and Anaal Nathrakh are just plain ol' rock if your logic is followed. Heavy metal bands stemmed from hard rock; deal with it. 80.58.6.172 09:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow I've been temporarily banned from making changes. Apparently someone is not happy with Guns N' Roses being a sleaze rock band well guess what? Thats just too bad. If anyone had half a brain they would know Guns N' Roses actually is sleaze rock. They're part of the big three of sleaze for crying out loud (L.A. Guns, Faster Pussycat, and Guns N' Roses)! They may not be sleaze rock now but the GN'R everyone knows is a Sleaze rock band. I wasn't even removing the hard rock genre! I was just adding to it. Don't be afraid of the truth 156.34.221.2 whoever you are. Unbelievable. SleazeTease 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm tired of edit warring. I don't even want to remove Hard Rock. I just want to add Sleaze rock too the genres. Since the discussion on this topic is not really active what else can I do but put what is true? Once again nothing is being removed, the sub genre "Sleaze rock" is just being added and it very much should be! The Guns N' Roses everyone knows is a hard rock band but is also a sleaze rock band and the fact that some are too ashamed of it to accept it and are trying to hide this truth are despicable. Add Sleaze rock to the genres and quit letting your personal feelings get in the way of the truth! SleazeTease 05:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

what axl says goes!
guys! axl says he's got a rock band! what axl says goes. he says it in an interview in an exclusive 1987 mtv only (pre-LIES) acoustic concert. i can upload the mpeg as proof, but i don't want to support piracy or illegal files or anything of that nature. if it comes down to it i will upload it but just keep it as rock or heavy rock. keep in mind, he claimed to be a rock band after the interviewer specifically asked him what he thinks of being called a metal band. that settles it. enough...end the argument. the majority believe it is a rock band anyway, and the majority goes here. just because two clueless users think it's metal does not mean it should be labeled as such. --Elysianfields 23:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Guns n' Roses is a HEAVY METAL band. If you want a late-80's LA band with a hard sound that ISN'T heavy metal, try Jane's Addiction. Just as Jane's came out of the punk aesthetic, GNR came out of the metal aesthetic. GNR played metal riffs when they weren't playing POWER BALLADS. How much more metal can you get? Srsrsr 19:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Dam right they merged Hard Rock with Metal end of story!

Listen guys, no matter what the musicians themselves think or say. Slipknot say they are "metal metal", but, for the exception of their fans, nobody cares about what they say, as everyone else knows they are nu metal, or, as some opine, they aren't even true metal :) Motorhead and AC/DC have always claimed themselves to be "rock n' roll bands", but the first are true speed metal, while the latter are true hard/blues rock. Comparing Guns N' Roses to both of these, we come to conclusion that they are heavy metal band. Listen, they ARE heavier than AC/DC, but, on the other hand, they have a lot of melodic compositions which fit directly in hard rock genre. Therefore, describing their genre, both "heavy metal" and "hard rock" terms should be used. Finally, THERE IS NO USE in comparing them to contemporary metal. Heavy-ness and speed aren't the (only) things that make music metal. Listen to NWOBHM bands like Iron Maiden and Diamond Head - both are rather "light" compared to music that is considered to be metal today. But they ARE heavy metal. We shouldn't revise bands' belonging to some genre just because the music gets heavier from decade to decade and what sounded like metal 30 years ago now doesn't. Verdict: leave both "hard rock" and "heavy metal", be so nice, please. User: 91.76.91.139 14:54, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what you people decide when it comes to Hard Rock or Metal. But there is one thing I know for sure and that is Guns N' Roses is a Sleaze Rock band. Disagree with me all you want by bringing up UYI I & II or all the other stuff but their most popular and successful album will always be Appetite for Destruction which is definately Sleaze. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to hear how sleazy their sound is on that record. Plus there is also the fact that their most famous image is that of dressing in the sleaze garb in similar ways to L.A. Guns, Faster Pussycat, etc. Do whatever you want with Hard Rock and Metal but please add Sleaze Rock to their genre.SleazeTease 00:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok....Sleaze Glam was added eariler but now its been removed. Put it back! SleazeTease 08:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, man! All this arguing, and no one has pointed out the obvious: it is perfectly acceptable to class a group in more than one genre. Look at the article on David Bowie, for instance. Personally, I think that article goes overboard, but it is common in Wikipedia articles to list a band under a few genres, such as Hard Rock and Heavy Metal. Most people here seem to agree that GNR has performed in different genres, so why is there some need to find a vague umbrella term like "Rock n Roll" to encompass everything they've done? Why not break it down into a few categories? And Axl Rose's opinion is relevant, but it isn't the final word on the subject. Many artists dislike the term "heavy metal" because of its associations. marbeh raglaim 00:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Appetite sales
The "Rise to fame" section says Appetite For Destruction sold 20 million copies, but the "Sales" section mentions only 15 million....


 * I updated a while back, forgot to mention it hear, so doing it now! :D --aditya mukherjee 12:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

20 million? I read recently AFD has sold 25 million.

Actually it has sold upwards of 18 mil.

Please remember that there is a world outside of America. AFD sold in excess of 18 million stateside. However, the band was huge internationally as well. Whichever number is settled upon, be sure to note what area it covers.

Steven Adler
It´s said that Steven Adler left "short time after the release" of Lies. I´m not an expert on the issue, but this fact seems strange to me. I suppose that he left at least 1 - 2 years after the release of that album. Isn´t it right that he played drums on "Civil War" which came out seperately on a tribute album (or something) in 90 - 91?

Another point: 'Adler had been replaced by the hard-hitting (but technically inferior) Matt Sorum,'

Shouldn't that be 'technicall superior'? I'm a guitaist myself, so I can't claim to be an expert in the field, but wasn't Matt for more technically gifted? I recall reading a guitar magazine article interviewing slash where he was quoted as saying that Stephen's playing is all over the place on Appetite. Somebody get a sober drummer to verify this...


 * Adler was fired on August 1990, part of "Use Your illusion" was already recorded. And anyone who says that Matt Sorum is inferior to Adler, drumwise, doesn't know anything about music. It is simply obvious that Matt is a much better drummer.<> 18:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Say what you please, but most agree that Adler was better. Maybe it's just because he was the original band member and people like him for that, but most like Adler better. His abilities went downhill with drug use, but he was still an awesome drummer regardless; I don't know enough on the subject to objectively compare Sorum and Adler.--Elysianfields 16:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm a drummer, but I have never heard GNR live, and I would assume that studio recordings aren't an accurate representation of a drummer's ability, so I cannot give you an assessment myself; however, the general consensus actually seems to be that Matt is the better drummer. In any case, for all practical purposes, an awesome drummer whose abilities are impaired by drug use is not better than a competent drummer who has full control of his faculties, I would think. P 14:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, the point is moot. This being an encyclopedia we should adhere to NPOV and remove the comparison altogether. The fact is that he was fired, period. If he was better or worse than Matt Sorum is a POV, as shown by this discussion on top. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 22:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Steven Adler is an awful drummer compared with Matt. In my opinion Use You Illusion 1 and 2 would have sound crap without Matt Sorum. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.92.168.168 (talk &bull; contribs) Sep 29 2005.

No he was not he drummed on Apettite For Destruction the best Guns N' Roses album of all time Metal Maiden 13:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal
Those pesky mexicans E- terrorists have vandalised the article again they keep changin the article to matt smith loves penis, i think we should give into there demands and give them there own page.

I added the anon user:172.201.64.206 to the list on WP:VIP, I am not an admin but will try to keep an eye open just in case. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 22:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. This article has been extremely vandalised recently. I added a warning at the beginning of the article. Anyway, thank you very much, I will inform any other irregularities that occur in the article.<> 12:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Coburn, If this happens again, just go to WP:VIP and admins will jump to your help. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Recently looking over the article and found a couple references to a "Laura Lavigne" in the introduction as their "no.1 fan". seemed to be erroneous vandalism so i deleted it. offender appears to be 58.136.52.117. sorry if i am mistaken.--Bacdatassup550 05:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone deleted the entire article and replaced it with the line "Matt Smith loves penis," so I just cut-and-pasted it back to the way it was. It was apparently vandalized by 216.204.132.3, if I'm not mistaken. --KittyCollier 18:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Final Classification
Please stop the edit war, everybody (that includes me). The article should either stay like it is now hard rock or be protected.

If we can't get a consensus here, I will ask an admin to protect the page until we can resolve this issue.

Let me start. I propose we change it to Rock and Roll since it's a more generic classification and it is what Axl said they are.

--Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

large.png|20px]] 19:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you....another vote for rock and roll. If the people (who seem to be people who are not members of wikipedia) don't stop vandalising the article, it should be protected.<> 21:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "Rock and roll" might make some people who are oblivious to the music world think that GNR are a rock and roll band in the sense of a Rockabilly band. Hard rock is most accurate IMO. Jobe  6  [[Image:Peru flag
 * Well, I also like hard rock better, but we need to try and compromise with the users who adamantly disagree with us. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Man it should be Hard rock.....check out 100 Greatest Artists of Hard Rock...GNR its' ranked #9 in the list....it's incredible that a band that it's ranked in the top ten of a genre will be classified under a different genre here in wikipedia. I don't really know what to say anymore......and speaking of compromise, i think there is already a kind of compromise in the overview of the article....the first line says they are a hard rock band...one of the greatest in ROCK N ROLL history....later the second paragraph says they changed the course of the HEAVY METAL industry...and the second line then goes on to speak about their HAIR METAL influences. I remember while I was writing those opening paragraphs that I should keep in mind the fact they are part of several sub-genres, that's why I mentioned ALL of them. The history section also expands on it. This is really a stupid edit war, with only two guys so far arguing in favor of hair or heavy metal.<> 02:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, whats wrong with my suggestion of just ' rock '? Superdude309


 * Superdude309, there's a message for you above on this very page. Agree or disagree, it doesn't matter. We can't separate fact from what some misinformed people think Guns n' Roses are... I apologize if I sound harsh or otherwise pretentious, but I honestly can't see GnR being called heavy metal or "rock," which is just a phrase that encompasses pretty much anything that stemmed from rock 'n' roll. If anyone HAS to edit the genre, please post an argument in favor of your edit, and WAIT for people to approve it, unless you want this to become another idiotic, pointless edit war. Coburn_Pharr, that's not a bad point, but there are plenty of heavy metal bands there...I mean, Slayer is OBVIOUSLY a metal band. Like I said before, hard rock is a "jac-of-all" word, and includes a wide variety of music in its definition. Some people would even argue that Led Zeppelin is a heavy band... 80.58.6.172 09:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

This is all crap, you want rock n roll, but you dont want rock? What? You say that im supposed to argue my points and all that, but you take no notice, how am i supposed to get my point across with you and the others (cant remember the names) in charge being hypocrites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by superdude309 (talk • contribs) Sep 18 2005


 * Maybe they do notice and don't agree. You seem to be the lone ranger. I recommend submitting to the majority's decision. And please, sign your posts and avoid words like "crap", they are hardly necessary. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, this is the last time I post on this talk page. For the user that claims we're all hypocrites: I haven't seen you arguing your points at all. I'll try and summarize my previous message for people that don't comprehend it, for one reason or another: Rock is a word used to describe music that originated from '50s rock 'n' roll. And, yes, you should stop trying to argue and accept that the majority has already decided: hard rock. 80.58.6.172 09:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I forgot my username on Wikipedia, but I just wanted to drop by a comment as a metal fan - bands that are considered metal overall produce songs with a metal song structure for the most part. Guns 'N Roses is not considered metal, although they may have a few songs that fit the category.  Also, using a band member's comment about what genre they are in does not make an argument any more valid - it is all about the song structure and the theory that drives the songs.

Look, this is really a pretty silly argument. Wikipedia does not take a position on what genre Guns n Roses played. See WP:NPOV. This article cannot unambiguously state that they played heavy metal, hard rock, rock, hard metal, hair metal, rock and roll, pop metal, or any other style. The only way this dispute can be satisfactorily resolved is by citing your sources. There should be a paragraph or more, explaining that Axl says they were this, allmusic says they're that, somebody else says this, and that's it. Wikipedia does not and can not choose who's right. Tuf-Kat 00:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Edited for NPOV; stating unequivocally that a band is of inferior quality and thus has poorer sales is inappropriate. Changed it so that the criticism remains while avoiding the objectivity problem. Also, cleaned up some punctuation, added a few softlinks. - October 16, 2005

Why not just change the genre to disputed ? Then do a section on the genre dispute mentioning that the band is impossible to place into any one particular genre because their music includes blues,punk,rock,heavy metal and industrial. As well as mentioning the several main genres different people consider them. EG: Hard rock, heavy metal etc etc. - October 7th 2006

hollywood rose
currently, hollywood rose redirects to guns n' roses, but personally i think there should be a separate article on hollywood rose. Gringo300 04:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ok, now hollywood rose has it's own article. Gringo300 02:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote
I personally believe the quote about "Mr Brownstone" is unnecessary. We can say the same things without the need to use epithets and curse. Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored, but if we can convey a message and explain the situation without the need to use the "f-word" and "g-d" then it's our obligation to do it. Please post your comments here and let's make a decision.

Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, we can convey the message that axl wanted to say whitout having to use his f-words.....&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 00:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that's two of us. Let's see what the rest has to say for a couple of days and then we'll copyedit the article accordingly. Sebastian Kessel Talk 00:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I did a copy edting today and removed the quote. The article has achieved a very professional tone, and that quote really brought it down.&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 22:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well done, hopefully it'll stay that way. Sebastian Kessel Talk 22:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the Jungle: The Very Best of Guns N' Roses
Since there won't be such a compilation titled above, should I fix the albums that links to that album page? --Snkcube 06:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Go Ahead. I deleted the reference tot hat album on the article. So, it will be best if we completly delete the article regarding that false album.&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 18:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I just finished the edits. --Snkcube 22:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Why does the Hollywood Rose like bring you to the Guns N' Roses article? There should be two seperate articles. Id be happy to make one...

Question about tone and adjective use
I wonder if the tone of the article is a bit hyberbolic. There is no way to test such statements as a "defiant" release, or that a band is "one of the best" or what have you. There are a lot of adjectives that don't add a lot towards making this into an encyclopaedia article- "notorious" and Someone did say "most dangerous band in the world," but without attribution, this is straight-away opinion that doesn't belong in wikipedia.

The statement "the band shared the stage with famous groups" is silly. Of course they were famous. "The famous band shared the stage with other famous groups?" Well, that's why they are on stage.

I did some editing. My advice is to look carefully at adjective use and stick to the facts.

--Defenestrate 17:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Velvet Revolver?
There used to be a whole section on the former members' new bands, including Velvet Revolver, which seems to have been deleted in this edit, and never reinstated. I've added a line about VR, but there's probably more info from the missing section that ought to be re-added too. — sjorford (talk)  17:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I noticed the deletion of that section but was unable to find at what point was it taken out. The whole section should be reinstated.&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 17:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been deleted again! I've given up caring frankly, this article gets so many fanboy edits it must be one of the most unmanageable in the whole of Wikipedia. — sjorford++ 21:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I re-added it (with some modifications) to the section "Breakup". GentlemanGhost 23:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And it got deleted again, and I've re-added it again. It is definitely pertinent information that several former band members play together in a new band, plus the stuff about the various GNR lawsuits should certainly be here in some form. — sjorford++ 20:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I remember writing some of those sections. I think they should be in the article. Some users are arguing that VR has nothing to do with GN'R. How can you sustain that argument when VR is composed of three important GNR former members, and even perform GNR covers during their shows. The section should be in the article.&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 21:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Velvet Revolver hasn't performed GNR covers on a regular basis during their shows in over a year. The lawsuit stuff can be incorporated in some fashion to the Legacy section, but otherwise Velvet Revolver information should stay in the Velvet Revolver entry on Wikipedia. Besides, the deleted passage you're trying to put back into the Guns N' Roses article doesn't match the format of the article in its current state - it's eight months old and things have changed since then. TheNewMinistry 03:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with not putting it back the way it was. Mostly, I put it back in because it appeared to have been deleted by a vandal, not by a conscientious editor. That said, it seems insufficient to me that the current article doesn't mention Velvet Revolver whatsoever. GentlemanGhost 08:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hollywood Rose album
In 2004, an album by Hollywood Rose, called The Roots of Guns N' Roses, was released... does this fit in any place of the article? igordebraga ≠ 18:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

So called Reunion
About the so called reunion, people keep adding things in without any source!! There are no official news about whether or not GNR's classic lineup is back. A couple of days ago Matt Sorum was interviewed and he said he talked with Axl, but that he didn't know anything about the so called reunion. If this is going to happen, let's add it to the article when it's official. If not, let it be...please, no more adding stuff without sources.&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 20:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not registered, but I still want to let you know that GNR are to play in my homecountry Belgium at the Graspop Metal Meeting. The Americans amongst you may not know this, but GMM is one of the biggest metal festivals in Europe. They will be headlining the second of three days. The exact band line-up (with Slash?) has not yet been revealed, but this categorises as a reunion, doesn't it? So maybe you can mention this in the article (If you guys want a source for this --> www.graspop.be) And by the way: GNR is not a Metal band and not a Rock n' Roll band. Hair Metal is nothing more than an insult; Metal is just too narrow; while Rock n' Roll is way too wide and has the wrong connotation (or do we want people who read the article to think GNR sound like Elvis or Chuck Berry?) Hard Rock is the only term that fits more or less (loud and often fast drums, a lot of distortion, high pitched voice, screaming guitar solo's, long hair, rebel image, shall I go on?). The fact that GNR also wrote ballads, doesn't change a thing (or did Metallica stop being a metal band the day they wrote Nothing Else Matters?) -- Johan, from Flanders/Belgium

Bumblefoot
This guy's name is Ron Thal. Should he be in the article as such, or as bumblefoot? Remember, Brian Mantia is known as "Brain" and yet the article and all fan sites refer to him as Brian Mantia.&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"Guns N' Roses is" vs. "Guns N' Roses are"
There are no two Guns and Roses being described. "Guns N' Roses" is a single proper noun along with the names of many bands on Wikipedia. However, some troll that has been blocked and banned many times from Wikipedia insists on spending every waking hour changing the spelling in these articles to "(Band Name) are". Sorry, there will be none of that here. TheNewMinistry 15:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The proper noun "Guns N' Roses" refers to one group of musicians, of which there are more than one. It is possible and allowable to treat the name as either singular or plural. This is a very frivolous detail to be arguing over. I assure you, nobody who reads the article will care if "is" or "are" is used when referring to Guns N' Roses.


 * Please refrain from asserting 'ownership' of an article (ie "there will be none of that here"), in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia. Also, please refrain from slandering someone who makes an edit that you do not agree with as a 'vandal' or 'troll'. That's something a troll does. --Zig 15:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a well-known difference between British and American English. Just pick one and stick with it throughout the article.  It's certainly not worth arguing about or becoming defensive or possessive.  --ElKevbo 16:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is a rather trivial argument. However, I believe Guns N Roses is one name, therefore, the correct verb should be is.MHO.&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 18:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Guns N' Roses are" is probably correct because the name sounds like they're talking about more than one gun and more than one rose. That's why I keep changing Guns N' Roses is" to "Guns N' Roses are". 64.142.89.105 22:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * yes, that would be correct if was used in the context of a sentence. But this is a band's name, not a sentence. Guns N Roses is one group with two words, one Guns and one Roses...it's just one..therefore is.&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 22:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want an academic librarian's POV on this: I just looked in the MLA (Modern Lang Assoc) manual & (drum roll, please...) the "is" crowd is correct. Now, I realize totally that Wikp is probably not officially governed by MLA rules, however, there probably should be consistency in this as a reference source. In this case, we're talking about the band members as a collective unit under the heading "Guns N' Roses." The inherent plural sense of their name has nothing to do with it, therefore "is" is it. (WHOA, I think my brain just flipped over in my skull...) Tommyt 20:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The APA Publication Manual agrees: "If the action of the verb is on the group as a whole, treat the [collective] noun as a singular noun" (Section 2.07, 6th ed.). But I maintain that this is a stupid argument as the root of the problem lies in regional language differences.  The MLA and APA are arguably heavily influenced by American English and thus somewhat biased in this particular context.  --ElKevbo 21:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

UH-OH, looks like 64.142.89.105 is warning all of US! Well, with the repeated warnings & bannings he's received, I think the matter should be turned over to the admin of W-pedia. Again. Personally, I think he's acting like a deposed tyrant who tells the judge "I DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE AUTHORITY OF THIS TRIBUNAL!" Tommyt 13:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Still, I do not believe that "Guns N' Roses is" is correct. I've been mearly trying to correct correct what I saw (and still do believe is) misinformation, which is "Guns N' Roses is". And to TheNewMinistry, if you do not stop changing "are" back to "is", I will report you vandalism big time and hopefully there will be no hard feelings that you realize that you were wrong by believing that "Guns N' Roses is" is correct. FOR THE LAST TIME: "Guns N' Roses are" IS correct and "Guns N' Roses is" IS NOT correct. I am getting so sick and tired of trying to correct this repeated bullshit TheNewMinistry does. 64.142.89.105 03:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The above is a perfect example of someone who doesn't understand what consensus means. &lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 14:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll point out the obvious: this is someone who's sole form of entertainment is harassing others. How does one report someone like this to admin? I've not as yet had the privilege... Tommyt 19:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The same annon user and his multiple IPs are constantly changing other band articles from "is" to "are" and "was" to "were"&mdash;this has been going on for months. All editors, please keep an eye out on other band articles and revert his changes. These annon IPs belong to User:Mike Garcia. Other IPs are suspected to be User:Alex 101. &mdash;RJN 00:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All editors, don't pick up where RJN left off. He is on something of a crusade to insert "was" and "is" into every band article that has the letter "s" at the end of a band name. Please revert him if he continues changing "are" to "is" and "were" to "are". 64.142.89.105 14:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

For the pedantic from one, "is" is correct for any noun or proper noun (even when plural) that collectively refers to a group. Guns N' Roses is, its members are. RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 20:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, as linked to from the Wikipedia Manual of Style, Guns and Roses  are.


 * Then Wikipedia's manual of style is faulty. Armblast 01:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Aerosmith-style blues
If anyone can find a citation or wiki-link for this non-existent music genre then by all means include it. Until then it is nonsense. 156.34.142.158 16:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a friendly note that both Srsrsr and 156.34.142.158 have reached their 3 revert limit for today. Thanks for starting this discussion on the Talk page 156.34.142.158! --ElKevbo 16:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear 156.34.142.158: It doesn't have to be an official a music genre to be an accurate music description. Ever heard "Beatlesesque," Dylanesque," etc.? GNR does NOT come from the Robert Johnson-Muddy Waters-Rolling Stones blues tradition, they come from the Aerosmith-AC/DC blues tradition, which is quite different. Srsrsr 17:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Srsrsr, please review all the edit histories before making false accusations. It was not me who rv'd your POV it was Zigthis. Perhaps you should review all Wikipedia policies. They may be very helpful to you. Start with assume good faith, Wikipedia is NOT and citations. Good luck and happy reading. 156.34.142.158 18:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Democracy
I've removed Chinese Democracy from the list of Guns N' Roses albums because such album has never been released. Someone immediately put it back in. Why is that? Has it been released? Can I buy it? Official release date has been announced by a record company? NO? Then what is it doing there in the list? Axl said it will be out this fall? Hm.... I've been hearing this from 1999. So I guess we must agree that Axl's word doesn't have any value (at least in this particular subject). For all we know it may never be released - Axl failed to deliver it in 13 years and can easily spend another 13 years perfecting it! If it is ever going to be released he may decide to change its title, tracklist etc. So this PLANNED album does NOT exist as it didn't exist 5 years ago when Axl embarked on Chinese Democracy world tour promoting this very same album. It should NOT be in GN'R discography until it is available in the shops. 194.126.209.1 14:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

'Chinese Democracy' is a stupid title anyway. Right up there with 'Use Your Illusion.' But I digress, I agree that make-believe albums should not be in discographies. Srsrsr 17:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Most Bands have upcoming albums in their discography pages, even if not much information is known about it.

HMV is advertising Chinese Democracy as a FALL 2006 RELEASE- BUT NO DATE HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED.

According to the distributor for Canadian music retailer, Sunrise Records, the new Guns N' Roses album, Chinese Democracy, is set to arrive on Tuesday, November 14, 2006. After 15 years of waiting for a new album, the album will finally be released. Again, the release date is November 14, 2006. This has been confirmed by the distributor for Sunrise Records.

JCH, September 26, 2006.

This is unconfirmed at the moment. Chinese Democracy is tentatively scheduled for a July 10, 2007 release. This was issued by the distributor for Sunrise Records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.23.122 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry I didn't sign my name to the above comment and about two days ago, I walked into the Sunrise Records at Lynden Mall and I asked the manager about the new Guns N' Roses album and she showed me red sheets of paper stapled together with the release dates of a number of different bands including a summer release for the new Judas Priest album. At any rate, the release date was listed as July 10, 2007. You want to know how frustrated I am about this long-delayed album. I sent numerous complaints to Universal Music about this. I told them to tell Axl Rose to put up or shut up and I also told them that if this album is not released, then $13 million will have been thrown away. I believe that the new Guns N' Roses album album will be released on July 10, 2007 as indicated. I know release dates are subject to change- but enough is enough. Axl needs to release the album and I keep hoping that the original lineup would reunite. It's time to put the past in the past where it belongs. If I'm wrong, I apologize- but if I'm right, you apologize to me.

JCH

Members List
Why does the list of GN'R members in the beginning of the article not include original members pictured above? Surely Slash, Duff, Izzy, Steve and Matt have much more to do with Guns N' Roses than a bunch of nobodies hired by Axl to play the songs originally written and performed by the classic line-up. Let's face it, the current GN'R is a Guns N' Roses tribute band. They have not released a single album yet, let alone produced any hits. Guns N' Roses is defined by Appetite/Illisions era, so the people who were in the band at that time must be listed as members! 194.126.209.1 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well i think the wikipedia article is supposed to be listing the current members of the band, not just the "definable lineup" which is arguable. MyLovelyMan 23:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be interresting to see if there are any other bands that have had as many former members as GNR. I can't think of any, these guys might just have the most.  That would be an nice fun fact to throw in there if it's true. --71.243.136.77 22:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Original research? --ElKevbo 22:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well Slash, Steve and Matt weren't the original members.

He wants to know which cunt deleted the original line up picture. The picture needs to be brought back!

Singles
Oh My God was on the End Of Days soundtrack but it wasn't released as a single. I'm sure Hair Of The Dog wasn't either. Can anyone prove that they were actually RELEASED as singles, i.e. sold in shops? Cover photo? Disc number? Release date? The fact they may have been played on radio doesn't make them singles. 194.126.209.1 16:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh My God was only spread through the internet as far as I know, and Hair of the Dog wasn't a single, though it was on The Spaghetti Incident?.

The Spaghetti Incident
As far as I know, the Charles Manson song is still on the CD. I bought a brand-new Spaghetti Incident disc this year, and the hidden song was still there. Me too Skeeker 21:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Band's box thingie
Why is every member's former or future band listed in "related articles"? No other band that I could find did this. The closest is The Beatles thing had a link to Yoko Ono's page. There was no link to Ringo's all-star band, etc. Thus I ask that you remove all the bands such as NIN and The Replacements from the GNR category box thingie. I'm trying to go through all The Replacements pages for disambigs to the movie or the kid's TV series, but everything I don't know is a GNR song, member, etc., and it is unneccesary. No other band does this. Bsd987 18:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Band History and "Abriviation"
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but the story of how Slash and Adler began playing with them presented here conflicts with the one in the article for Slash--see the first paragraph under "Guns N' Roses" on his page. Also, the article says that Axl Rose is an "abriviation" of oral sex, which I believe should be anagram and have "oral sex" in quotations, just to keep with a good grammatical standard.

Izzy
Perhaps we should make mention of the fact that Izzy has been performing with the band again? He played tonight in Greece and has been at about half the shows on this European tour now. In fact although he was supposed to finish his run of shows at the end of June he keeps turning up... there's mention in the article of him returning during the UYI tour but no mention of him being at the Euro 2006 tour.

I heard the KROC interview with Axl on which when he was asked about who the current band members were, he mentioned Izzy among the others.The Archer 16:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I.R.S.
While it was not an official single, I felt mention should be made of the fact that I.R.S. actually charted. Since it doesn't really belong in the list however, I've placed it under the Chinese Democracy section. The song went to 49th in Radio & Records' Active Rock National Airplay chart in February 2006, based soley on stations adding the internet leak to playlists (this was a first for an internet leak).

Band lineup image
Recently I've seen a bit of this. Constant changing of the image to represent the article for Guns N' Roses, I just felt I should ask here to see what the general feel is concerning the representing image. For a while, it has been the older lineup image and recently it's been changed to the new lineup, old again and now back to new. Personally I am in favour of the new image as it portrays what the band now is, instead of what it was. I believe the arguement of 'more people care about the old lineups' to be invalid also, as this page is meant to be an encyclopedia entry on the band to show GN'R for what it is. I just thought I should give it a mention to see what others thought and hopefully decide on one image instead constant change. BirdieGryphon 14:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Too bad the current line-up didn't do anything. C'mon, Appetite for Destruction is one of the best selling albums of all-time.  That combined with the sales of Use Your Illusion I & II are enough proof that the line-up of the band from the mid 80s to the early 90s was the one in which the band had their defineable lineup.  Besides, the current members picture is terrible, it's too dark to see who's in there without enlarging it.  The 1985-1990 image is much clearer. 72.65.31.113 18:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While I agree with the above user that the new line-up image is too dark, is must say that what the old-lineup did is irrelevant to what picture should be used. This is an ecyclopedia, and as such it is our responsability to ensure that users looking for information on GN'R get an article in which they can find out what the band is today. Finding images of the current line-up is extremely difficult in the internet, and having one here in the wikipedia makes this article rather unique. IMHO, the current image should stay.&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 19:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree - there's no reason for a past lineup's photograph to be featured ahead of one featuring the currently active lineup. TheNewMinistry 05:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I Disagree completely. Until the new band lineup has released an album the picture that should be used is the old lineup.  You would never put up a picture of the current line up of The Who (just Townshend and Daltrey with a touring band) instead of the classic lineup.  Likewise, the relevant version of the Rolling Stones is now just Keith, Mick, Charlie and Ronnie, there is no need for the classic lineup because this is the one that is relevant now.  The current incarnation of Guns N' Roses haven't released an album and most people don't even know there is still a version of Guns N' Roses out there.  Until Chinese Democracy is actually released the lineup that the majority of people looking at the page will actually care about is the classic one.  The day Chinese democracy comes out though by all means put up this new lineup's photo.132.181.7.1 06:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutley, Wikipedia should conform to certain standards and expectations met by other sources. The "current lineup" has been changing multiple times a year for the past decade, so we could all use a little patience and just wait for the next album.71.241.184.110 23:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Try these links VH1 profile Yahoo! profile. You'll clearly see that the definable lineup is used in both of these websites, not the current one.  I see no problem with using the most famous lineup as the premier image. 71.243.144.212 15:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense that the latest line-up should be included and moreover this also includes Izzy.The Archer 16:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering the current lineup is embarking on a North American tour, and dates for those shows are listed on this very page, the current lineup should be used. Regardless of who released an album and who didn't, the band currently touring as Guns N' Roses is the one whose picture should be up. People interested in seeing a show who are not hard-core fans may check Wiki to read up on the band; representing something that was current 15+ years ago is in no way useful. There's plenty of info on the history of the band on this page.
 * Not entirely true. An encyclopedia is for reading about something that you know nothing about.  The band's history is essential to learning about who the band is today.  If anyone was looking for information concerning the tour, they are probably already familiar with the band's better days.  The band's past is WAY more significant than their current lineup.71.241.188.207 21:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well then, I changed it before reading this, but how's the latest image then? It's not too dark, clearly shows all current members and even has the 2006 logo at the top. Of course I agree that the past is important, but just deal with it. At the moment, Guns N' Roses IS THE CURRENT LINEUP. Therefore an image of the current lineup would make the most sense, this being an encyclopedic account of both the history and the continuing development of the band. Have a nice day :) --Mr Mordecai 04:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't we use an image from one of the booklets? See this topic. - Face 07:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Label(s)
Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm pretty sure I'm not) - but Sanctuary is the band's MANAGEMENT company, not a label. Their current label is Universal (which ate up Geffen).

chinese democracy world tour
there should be a page with all the dates the band have and will play during the tour and include any info about the gigs

Regarding Ferrer
This news is driving me crazy. I saw GNR live in San Juan and Axl introduced Ferrer normally, as an official member. Several sources have also said that both Ferrer and Mantia are official members. Can we find a link that is really realy OFFICIAL. 'Cause i don't know, I guess this is the only band in history that has TWO drummers. If we can't find any official official official news site, maybe we should put Ferrer in the touring members section, not in the band members section.136.145.83.127 21:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ferrer is officially "in", as is, Brain, by way of a posting by band manager Merck Mercuaidis on the Here Today Gone to Hell messageboard- which has basically become the official mode of communication between the band and fans. This was further confirmed by Dizzy Reed who replied to a message from a board member who knows him. I'm too lazy to track down the links at the moment- but trust me. The point is- they will never take the stage with two drummers- I assume Brain gets first crack at all times if he's available and willing. A strange situation- but such is life in GN'R.-Yashin79

Izzy Stradlin and Steven Adler
Whoever keeps adding Izzy Stradlin and Steven Adler to the band's current line-up... PLEASE STOP. Izzy played a bunch of shows with them this summer- but is NOT back in the band. Axl and Steven Adler apparently hung out together in Vegas a couple of months ago.. but again Steven Adler is NOT in the band. 2 drummers is enough I think! -Yashin79

Axl Rose - Vocals (Lead), Synthesizer, Percussion
Guns N Roses used Synthesizers on Appetite for Destruction? I thought they were a rock band? Didnt New Wave bands use Synthesizers? I would suspect Bon Jovi but not GNR?

Could someone clarify this?

I also checked & found out Poison dont use synthensizers, is that not funny but GNR does. I thought it was the other way around. Warrant, Britny Fox have used them but that is expected as they were hair metal.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tna (talk • contribs) 02:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC).


 * GNR used synthesizers in only one song of Appetite for destruction, it was apradise city. The difference is that bands like bon jovi and europe relied heavily on the synthesizers. GNR has never used synthesizers that much anymore, and are using more and more the talents of keyboardists Reed and Pittman. The sounds by these two keyboardists are quite different than the styles of hair metal keyboardists.&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 05:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Man & your right as guys like Europe/ Bon Jovi just sound like new wave 80's pop!

A note on GA status
I see that this article was at one time a Featured article or FA candidate. However, the article is not listed as a <font color="#32cd32">Good Article . As part of the Rock music WikiProject, it is suggested that an article achieve Good Article (GA) status before having it's candidacy re-newed. So be sure that points from any previous Features article candidate (FAC) archives and peer reviews are taken and applied to the article, and shoot for a GA nomination. Good luck! --<font color="#000000"> Reaper <font color="#ff0000"> X  22:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've cleaned up the whole article. I'm not entirely happy with the Chinese Democracy and Legacy sections... I might work on them some more.

Some references are needed to make the article encyclopedic.

With some work, this article could be a successful featured article candidate.

Tom H 21:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Guns N' Roses - Collector's Box
Ok, i just was surfing in the internet and i scrambled the words Guns N' Roses, in the google search box and i found a CD called Guns N' Roses > Collector's Box , released 2006. Shouldn't it be added to the GNR discography in wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.152.81.67 (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

No, as it's not an official Guns N' Roses release. Bucketheader 21:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Image of GNR
Why not add the image of the band from the Appetite for Destruction booklet? Or from the Use Your Illusion booklet? Such images fall under non-free promotional, right? I have those booklets here, and I can scan and upload them if that's ok. - Face 18:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)