Skeg - of course music is best served live! Why else do you think I played live and toured for the best part of 6/7years? Why else would I attend literally HUNDREDS of gigs across the country?

You are missing my point - I am not saying they cannot pull it off live - The first band I was in played GnR covers and we pulled it off live fine. My point is the new "Guns N Roses" is NOT Guns N Roses..... It's Axl Rose fronting a covers band made from hired guns...

Look... Metallica ditched Jason Newstead some years ago, but instead of getting in a session player to fill in, they took time out and auditioned hundreds of guys to find a new BAND MEMBER. The replacement Robert Trujilo(sp) is now a Metallica BAND MEMBER...

On the other side of the coin, when Nick Menza quit Megadeth, Dave Mustaine was in dire need of a drummer! But he didn't audition a new member, he hired in a session drummer - a hired gun. And he has has a few up untill the last year or two ago - including Jimmy DeGrasso (mainly metal and rock sessionist) and also the great Vinnie Colauita, best known for being a jazz sessionist and played for years with Sting. But even tho Jimmy was "in the band" for almost 4 years, he was a hired gun all that time - paid a monthly fee, and got a fee for recording credits, rather than percentage of royalties as normal band members get. Vinnie Colauita is also a perfect example, as he is a jazz drummer! In a metal band! But Mustaine hired him to play, and play he did - he played exactly what Mustaine told him to and how he told him to do it!

This is my point.... I'm not saying if you go and see Guns N Roses nowadays and you like em, thats bad. I won't diss you for liking em at all. But to me, it's NOT Guns N Roses. It's Axl and a covers band.

And I don't think in this duscussion, bootlegs, DVD's and video's are "irrelevant" - I have already said I have not had the chance to see either line up play live, so having to identical settings to compare bands (in this case on a recorded concert) is a perfect way of comparrion, that is fair. If I had seen one line up live and one line up on video it wouldn't be a fair comparrison as you could argue that the live gig creats a far better mood and energy, to which I'd agree. Of course the ultimate way to compare is to compare both bands in a live situation - but for me thats not possible...

Going back to xx ammount of years with no sign of GnR and then suddenly they pop back up and are playing the worlds biggest shows being testament to how good they are now - I disagree again. Of course Axl would get the biggest gigs - if the SPice Girls reformed they'd play arenas and stadiums straight away, cos the market is there for them to do it. No-one knows what the score is but they will still pay FIRST, then find out

Same as movies. The Matrix (1) - superb film, took everyone by storm, crazy reviews, everyone loved it, made MILLIONS. Of course when the second one came out, everyone flocked to see it, it took MILLIONS again in the first week. Doesn't matter that it was complete SHITE. Cos the first was so good, everyone pressumed the sequel to be even better. And as such they paid all the money in advance.

Same with bands. GnR were (next to the Stones) one of the biggest gorssing rock bands in the world - so naturally, when a press release comes out to say "GnR are playing live again! Buy tickets for $100!" both Axl, the record company, and the tour promoter KNOW that people will pay to go to an arena or stadium to see em play, even if they know nothing about the new line up. It's all to do with marketing the name. Thats why Axl was so anxious to hold onto the rights to the name - the name is worth MILLIONS, even without a band.

Fuck, he could sit in his bedroom and record 79 mins of him hitting a shoebox, cursing the rest of the band for leaving him, and if he put it out on the stands, it would shift millions in the first week. Why? Cos people don't know whats on it till they buy it And it'sthe name that sells it