the new "war"?

[moreblack]

Groghan, it's no biggie. As soon as you use facts and common sense, and therefore NOT back Axl 100% thru all arguments, you become the enemy (but only to the blind worshiping few). Even if you are absolutely in the right.

Edited June 6, 2012 by moreblack

[Apollo]

but if we go beyond Guns, it's quite obvious that Slash's carrer has been more consistant and solid as artist than Axl and Izzy Stradlin

If you by "consistent" mean a one trick pony that is unable to evolve as an artist and doomed to just try to recreate past accomplishments with ever decreasing success, then yes, Slash is the most consistent of the three.

You can't be serious, and you must be frustrated that Axl can't make good music without Izzy and Slash.

What has Axl accomplished before Slash joined "his" band? The answer is nothing. What has he accomplished after Slash quit "his" band? Same anwser.

Same could be said about Splash

I'm not really even a Slash fan, I couldn't stand Velvet Revolver...... but I can admit that your statement is ridiculous.

In terms of music - Slash has been featured on six albums in the same time that Axl has put out one album.

Slash has had a number one album, a number three album, released an album that sold 4 million copies, won a Grammy, had a couple number one "rock" hits.

Axl is concentrating on keeping his "integrity" intact and touring. And touring. And touring.

Slash just routinely puts out music that his fans enjoy.

I've been an Axl Rose die-hard fan for longer than you have been alive.

But to say that he has accomplished more in the past 15 years than Slash has is just ignorant on your part.

Nobody gives a shit how many accolades Slash has. By that logic, Lady Gangbang is more accomplished than Slash and WAY better than Axl. Furthermore, Van Gogh wasnt an accomplished artist because he didnt sell but maybe one painting during his lifetime.

I've never really seen your posts before, but judging from this one I'm guessing that if I refer to you as a simpleton, it wouldn't be the first time you've been called that before?

The question was who has had a more productive career post GnR.

Well, simpleton, how would you judge that? In your fairy tale world, you wouldn't use number of albums, records sold, chart success, music awards won............but instead, your formula would simply be "least number of albums released."

Lady Gangbang.....wow. Very creative there.

I've never seen one person on this forum - even those that hate Axl - ever say that they thought Lada Gaga.....or sorry, Lady Gangbag (that is just sooo funny, you should really think about a career as a comedian) is a better or more talented singer than Axl is. A little advice - try and stick to the actual topic/facts, rather than going off on rants that NOBODY else has mentioned.

Has anybody ever said that VG wasn't a talented artists because he didn't release 100 paintings? So again, your analogy or comparision makes no sense at all.

This is the weirdest fan forum I have ever posted at. The only band forum in the world where fans equate NOT putting out music as a good thing. So odd. Axl Rose is my favorite singer. I guess you and I do not have much in common, as I'd LOVE it if Axl put out a new album every couple of years, and I think it would be great for the band if they sold 10 million copies each and won grammys. You apparently would not like that (according to your comparisions).

To each his own I guess.

[GnRMatt]

A couple of years ago he said : "Axl's band is obviously not GNR, everybody knows that. It's not even right that he uses the name."

I don't think Izzy changed his mind, he just seems to need some cash...

Pretty sure that was a 2001 interview and some people change, but to me it just looks like IZZY is having fun and sure he probably got some cash for it like 2006 but i don't think he needs it.

[sleeper]

Groghan, it's no biggie. As soon as you use facts and common sense, and therefore NOT back Axl 100% thru all arguments, you become the enemy (but only to the blind worshiping few). Even if you are absolutely in the right.

This

[stumbleine]

Linguini -

It is well documented that Steven played no part in songwriting and held Appetite hostage when he realized that meant he wouldn't be entitled to any money from publishing.

So any statement from Slash intimating all five were equally involved is a lie. Why does Slash lie? To look cool? To make Axl look bad? Because he truly doesn't remember? Because it's fun? Because he doesn't give a shit? I'm not sure. You'd have to ask him (and hope his answer isn't a lie).

Another thing to consider is this. Let's say hypothetically Axl was 41 responsible for writing, Izzy 29%, Duff 15% and Slash 15%. Well, if Slash paints the picture that all five were equally involved, while it does give credit to Steven that Steven doesn't deserve, it also increases the credit Slash is giving himself from 15% to 20% (while also reducing Axl's credit from 41% to 20%). Seems like a pretty smart lie. Not only does it boost Slash's role and minimize Axl's role, it also paints Slash as a laid back humble dude who is spreading the credit around.

Axl and Izzy wrote most of the lyrics but also wrote most of the music (more so Izzy than Axl). Now, that doesn't mean Axl and Izzy wrote 90% of the music like they did with the lyrics, but it was still definitely more than 50% between the two of them, thus "most."

I can admit that another musician is having a great career - even if I don't like their music.

Slash *is* having a great career. Axl just happens to be having 20x the career Slash is.

But they're still both having great careers.

how the fuck do you know these things?

I call bullshit.(your reply to 1st post

Edited June 6, 2012 by stumbleine

[stumbleine]

actually,MSL,you have more cred in these matters than most on this forum.

I do have respect for a lot of the things you've done for the fan community in the past.

[Rustycage]

how the fuck do you know these things?

I call bullshit.(your reply to 1st post

I did my best to follow the Adler trial as a child

I smell BS

[halfday]

hey all,a couple of threads lately got me thinking,are we turning Izzy's positive cameo with Axl in London into

something negative?who is more GNR,the HOF band or the Indiana duo?

let's not be stupid and "take sides"again on this issue.

HOFband was inducted as "Guns N Roses",it can be argued that Axl and Izzy are just as much Guns,

but who cares?

let's all co exist.

Well the bunch inducted at the HOF are not GNR...they were just labeled that by the useless made up imaginary ceremony "promotors". the original plan was to get Axl to sellout and them cashing in.

We all know Axl and Izzy were the heart and soul + founders and wrote all the shit. Anybody that denies this don't know anything about GNR or are just trolling.

Nuff said..

this

[Rustycage]

how the fuck do you know these things?

I call bullshit.(your reply to 1st post

I did my best to follow the Adler trial as a child

I smell BS

Uhhhh . . . the drummer of my favorite band was suing the other members and it was a major national news story, why wouldn't I be interested in that?

Between MTV News, updates on CourtTV, as well as magazines like Metal Edge, Circus, Hit Parader, etc, it was a fascinating time in the band's history. If you weren't paying attention back then, maybe you don't realize what an incredible media circus the trial was.

An 8-10 year old caring about a trial? It reeks. Being a teen at the time, I cared about the music and raising hell. At 8-10 it was just about being a kid, not watching court tv. You must have been a very strange child.

[Eu4ic]

but if we go beyond Guns, it's quite obvious that Slash's carrer has been more consistant and solid as artist than Axl and Izzy Stradlin

If you by "consistent" mean a one trick pony that is unable to evolve as an artist and doomed to just try to recreate past accomplishments with ever decreasing success, then yes, Slash is the most consistent of the three.

You can't be serious, and you must be frustrated that Axl can't make good music without Izzy and Slash.

What has Axl accomplished before Slash joined "his" band? The answer is nothing. What has he accomplished after Slash quit "his" band? Same anwser.

Same could be said about Splash

I'm not really even a Slash fan, I couldn't stand Velvet Revolver...... but I can admit that your statement is ridiculous.

In terms of music - Slash has been featured on six albums in the same time that Axl has put out one album.

Slash has had a number one album, a number three album, released an album that sold 4 million copies, won a Grammy, had a couple number one "rock" hits.

Axl is concentrating on keeping his "integrity" intact and touring. And touring. And touring.

Slash just routinely puts out music that his fans enjoy.

I've been an Axl Rose die-hard fan for longer than you have been alive.

But to say that he has accomplished more in the past 15 years than Slash has is just ignorant on your part.

Nobody gives a shit how many accolades Slash has. By that logic, Lady Gangbang is more accomplished than Slash and WAY better than Axl. Furthermore, Van Gogh wasnt an accomplished artist because he didnt sell but maybe one painting during his lifetime.

I've never really seen your posts before, but judging from this one I'm guessing that if I refer to you as a simpleton, it wouldn't be the first time you've been called that before?

The question was who has had a more productive career post GnR.

Well, simpleton, how would you judge that? In your fairy tale world, you wouldn't use number of albums, records sold, chart success, music awards won............but instead, your formula would simply be "least number of albums released."

Lady Gangbang.....wow. Very creative there.

I've never seen one person on this forum - even those that hate Axl - ever say that they thought Lada Gaga.....or sorry, Lady Gangbag (that is just sooo funny, you should really think about a career as a comedian) is a better or more talented singer than Axl is. A little advice - try and stick to the actual topic/facts, rather than going off on rants that NOBODY else has mentioned.

Has anybody ever said that VG wasn't a talented artists because he didn't release 100 paintings? So again, your analogy or comparision makes no sense at all.

This is the weirdest fan forum I have ever posted at. The only band forum in the world where fans equate NOT putting out music as a good thing. So odd. Axl Rose is my favorite singer. I guess you and I do not have much in common, as I'd LOVE it if Axl put out a new album every couple of years, and I think it would be great for the band if they sold 10 million copies each and won grammys. You apparently would not like that (according to your comparisions).

To each his own I guess.

I usually try to stick to the arguments. I'll disregard your insulting reply to my non-insulting reply.

I never used the word "talent." I used the word you used, "ACCOMPLISHMENT." Sure Van Gogh could've played to the tastes of his day and "accomplished" a lot. But he did his own thing because he realized that what society, and folks like Groghan, deem worthy of praise is often crap -- hardly an accomplishment!

'Lady Gangbang' wasnt really supposed to be funny, it was more bemoaning the reality that these days sluttiness = sales = talent. The fact you thought I was trying to be hilarious with that is indication I probably made a mistake engaging in conversation with you. So, I'll be concise:

Quantity and quality are different things, you see. Producing 5 albums with high shit-factor doesnt equal one great album. Slash producing 5 generic albums he made over a weekend might quantitatively amount to you as being 'more productive' or "accomplishing a lot." But in my world, Chinese Democracy required more talent, work, creativity, and aspiration than all 5 crappy Slash albums.

You can say "to each his own" after your insulting reply all you want, but that doesnt change the fact your reply was insulting, or that frankly, your appraisal of accomplishments sucks ass.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Eu4ic

[moreblack]

Don't act like CD was this untouchable masterpiece that is worth 15+ years of wait. It's not. Once he premiered some of the new stuff in the early 00s you could tell...

[Zint]

HOFband was inducted as "Guns N Roses"

Wut?

[Damn_Smooth]

Ummm... Axl and Izzy were inducted too right? Even against Axl's will.

So what's the difference between this "war" and every single other "war" in these forums besides adding Izzy to the current lineup?

If it's a war between Myles, Slash, Gilby, Duff, Steven and Matt vs. Axl, Izzy and the new band; I'm definitely going with Axl and Izzy.

Myles and Gilby weren't inducted though, so you still can't really have a war with an incomplete band.

[Bobbo]

Slash did manage to do one thing Axl hasn't, release an album that was relevant and had an impact. For better or for worse, it doesn't really matter because THAT'S what's subjective, but it's an indisputable fact Contraband was the most relevant post 96 gnr album. Way more than CD was.

[Damn_Smooth]

Slash did manage to do one thing Axl hasn't, release an album that was relevant and had an impact. For better or for worse, it doesn't really matter because THAT'S what's subjective, but it's an indisputable fact Contraband was the most relevant post 96 gnr album. Way more than CD was.

2 things.

1: Slash needed Duff, Matt and the fanbase of Stone Temple Pilots to accomplish anything in America.

2: America does not equal the world.

[Bobbo]

Slash did manage to do one thing Axl hasn't, release an album that was relevant and had an impact. For better or for worse, it doesn't really matter because THAT'S what's subjective, but it's an indisputable fact Contraband was the most relevant post 96 gnr album. Way more than CD was.

so you admit that relevance and impact are subjective, but then go on to state it's indisputable fact?

are you sure you know what these words mean?

No, what's subjective is if people think these songs are creative enough, or good compare to what Axl did. But it is a fact the album was the most relevant post 96 gnr album and the one that had the most impact.

[Bobbo]

Slash did manage to do one thing Axl hasn't, release an album that was relevant and had an impact. For better or for worse, it doesn't really matter because THAT'S what's subjective, but it's an indisputable fact Contraband was the most relevant post 96 gnr album. Way more than CD was.

2 things.

1: Slash needed Duff, Matt and the fanbase of Stone Temple Pilots to accomplish anything in America.

2: America does not equal the world.

And Axl had plenty of help during Chinese Democracy, including $13 million and the luxury of owning the GNR name. Oh and over a decade worth of buzz and mystique. Way more coverage and anticipation than Contraband. Now; I realize that most of the general population didn't follow the whole process of getting to the album, but anybody that gave a remote shit about Axl or followed GNR at all knew that this was the first GNR album without Slash and co, and it took a lot of time and money to produce. When release was officially announced and set it stone the media went abuzz. It was talked about by every respectable musical publication under the sun, and was reviewed by them as well. It was talked about on entertainment shows, it had commercials, Time Magazine and other articles, newspaper articles, and one of the most popular soft drink companies giving away a free can of their product to everybody in the country JUST because the album was finally release. It WAS promoted, and pretty well, by outside sources. Axl did promote, through online websites and interviews a few weeks after release. Sure, he could have done more on his part, but I HIGHLY doubt it would've been a big game changer in the grand scheme of things. People were gonna either treat it like Van Hagar or Van Halen III when it came out regardless. They were either gonna take to the music, or they weren't. That's why I think it's a little more fair to compare the two than you're bringing on.

Chinese had an impressive debut, and I wasn't shocked by that at all. I always thought it would regardless of how the music was. I think it could have done even better based on curiosity alone had they not streamed the entire finished album on Myspace beforehand. But even then, I think the end result would've been more or less the same. Stronger debut, and then fall off. And that's really what happened. A couple months after release, CD fell off the face of the Earth, both in the media and on the radio, and in the end all it really did was go over most casual fans' heads and split the hard cores into two. Axl could never play a song off CD again, and most people wouldn't bat an eye. The sad truth.

Meanwhile, I CONSTANTLY still hear Slither and FTP on rock fm radio on a regular basis, eight years later. And that's my point. Contraband had significance, impact, and positive fan feedback. It connected with an audience and got steady interest in return. Axl didn't get that feat with Chinese, and has never achieved any of the above since Slash left the band. Maybe Axl made more with the luxury of the name from the revenue aspect, I honestly don't know; but Contraband was the most relevant post '96 GNR album, and that's just a fact. And ask yourself, what's more respectable...making more money using (for the most part) music and a legacy built by an entirely different band? Or releasing a relevant and overall successful album that had a notable impact post heyday despite all odds? I think most people would go with the latter, but each to their own...

[AxlRose14]

hey all,a couple of threads lately got me thinking,are we turning Izzy's positive cameo with Axl in London into

something negative?who is more GNR,the HOF band or the Indiana duo?

let's not be stupid and "take sides"again on this issue.

HOFband was inducted as "Guns N Roses",it can be argued that Axl and Izzy are just as much Guns,

but who cares?

let's all co exist.

Well the bunch inducted at the HOF are not GNR...they were just labeled that by the useless made up imaginary ceremony "promotors". the original plan was to get Axl to sellout and them cashing in.

We all know Axl and Izzy were the heart and soul + founders and wrote all the shit. Anybody that denies this don't know anything about GNR or are just trolling.

Nuff said..

exactly!

/thread

Most of ya'll are morons in comparison to my genious

[Damn_Smooth]

Slash did manage to do one thing Axl hasn't, release an album that was relevant and had an impact. For better or for worse, it doesn't really matter because THAT'S what's subjective, but it's an indisputable fact Contraband was the most relevant post 96 gnr album. Way more than CD was.

2 things.

1: Slash needed Duff, Matt and the fanbase of Stone Temple Pilots to accomplish anything in America.

2: America does not equal the world.

And Axl had plenty of help during Chinese Democracy, including $13 million and the luxury of owning the GNR name. Oh and over a decade worth of buzz and mystique. Way more coverage and anticipation than Contraband. Now; I realize that most of the general population didn't follow the whole process of getting to the album, but anybody that gave a remote shit about Axl or followed GNR at all knew that this was the first GNR album without Slash and co, and it took a lot of time and money to produce. When release was officially announced and set it stone the media went abuzz. It was talked about by every respectable musical publication under the sun, and was reviewed by them as well. It was talked about on entertainment shows, it had commercials, Time Magazine and other articles, newspaper articles, and one of the most popular soft drink companies giving away a free can of their product to everybody in the country JUST because the album was finally release. It WAS promoted, and pretty well, by outside sources. Axl did promote, through online websites and interviews a few weeks after release. Sure, he could have done more on his part, but I HIGHLY doubt it would've been a big game changer in the grand scheme of things. People were gonna either treat it like Van Hagar or Van Halen III when it came out regardless. They were either gonna take to the music, or they weren't. That's why I think it's a little more fair to compare the two than you're bringing on.

Chinese had an impressive debut, and I wasn't shocked by that at all. I always thought it would regardless of how the music was. I think it could have done even better based on curiosity alone had they not streamed the entire finished album on Myspace beforehand. But even then, I think the end result would've been more or less the same. Stronger debut, and then fall off. And that's really what happened. A couple months after release, CD fell off the face of the Earth, both in the media and on the radio, and in the end all it really did was go over most casual fans' heads and split the hard cores into two. Axl could never play a song off CD again, and most people wouldn't bat an eye. The sad truth.

Meanwhile, I CONSTANTLY still hear Slither and FTP on rock fm radio on a regular basis, eight years later. And that's my point. Contraband had significance, impact, and positive fan feedback. It connected with an audience and got steady interest in return. Axl didn't get that feat with Chinese, and has never achieved any of the above since Slash left the band. Maybe Axl made more with the luxury of the name from the revenue aspect, I honestly don't know; but Contraband was the most relevant post '96 GNR album, and that's just a fact. And ask yourself, what's more respectable...making more money using (for the most part) music and a legacy built by an entirely different band? Or releasing a relevant and overall successful album that had a notable impact post heyday despite all odds? I think most people would go with the latter, but each to their own...

I didn't see the VH1 special on CD like I did the forming of VR. I didn't see an Axl or band member interviews every time I went online after the launch of CD. Most of the press that I saw for CD was negative because of the time, money and lack of Slash. Until you can provide a link disproving any one of those things, Contraband was way more positively hyped than CD.

I also don't understand this whole name thing people get hung up on all the time. The names Axl and Slash were just as famous as the name Guns N' Roses. It's a strawman argument at best.

[Eu4ic]

'Making an impact' means (quite literally) changing the scene, doing something confrontational. It does not mean perpetuating the status quo. VR...sucks. Period.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Eu4ic

[WhazUp]

VR...sucks. Period.

I disagree with that opinion, I quite like 'em

Anyways some of the stuff in this thread just seems like arguing for the sake of arguing, such little things that in the grand scheme of things doesn't really matter IMO

[Patience 4 Axl]

A rarely considered point of view, however, is that if Axl didnt keep the Gnr name and tour throughout the 00s and put out an album, GNR probably wouldnt have even been nominated.

I disagree. I think GNR were inducted in spite of the tarnished legacy of the last decade. AFD is what got them in, the UYI followups helped seal the deal. Most of what came after that doesn't really factor in.

Well in the late 90s many claimed Gnr had been wiped off the map. How did Gnr re-emerge into the public consciousness? Chinese Democracy. Axl kept the ball rolling which otherwise wouldve stopped 15 years ago. The HOF, the Slash purists, Steven, Duff all automatically assume that the name of the band, GUNS N ROSES, means absolutely nothing. All they want is to push people into a reunion sleaze-fest and to hell with Guns n Roses in 2012 and what the band has gone through for 15 years. I say that's fucked up.

I disagree. GNR has always been in the public consciousness. Even if you're not a fan, you've heard the music somewhere. Ever go to a sporting event? In the US anyway, I have never gone to a baseball game, football game or hockey game where the opening to WTTJ hasn't been played. Listen to the radio? Whether you tune in to classic rock, top 40, lite rock stations or Sirius, Guns is always playing somewhere. Their songs have been kept on rotation for the past 25 years.

Look at the other inductees at the HOF this year alone for example. The last album the Faces put out was in 1978. Same with The Miracles. People just don't forget about bands that had a major impact on the industry like Guns did, even if they eventually disappear. What they accomplished, and their music, always lives on. GNR were already represented within the HOF when I visited several years ago, long before there was a thought of a possible nomination. Having one of the top selling debut albums ever, and being one of the biggest bands in the world during the late '80's and early 90's, is what got them the induction. Axl keeping "the ball rolling" with replacements and a mediocre album had nothing to do with it imo. It was about what the original line up achieved, not about what's happening now. The HOF honored those members who were responsible for the bands biggest accomplishments. There's nothing fucked up about it.

[moreblack]

The HOF honored those members who were responsible for the bands biggest accomplishments. There's nothing fucked up about it.

Not a thing. They broke all the walls down.

The new guys can just sit back and coast...

Edited June 7, 2012 by moreblack

[PITBOSS]

izzy went to europe to play two songs with the band? it's not like axl is bringing him back (which would be really cool).

did he guest at two shows or one?

[Young_Gun]

I personally do not see the merit in arguing who has had a better career. The FACT is, that they both had better careers when they were together in the same band. Slash doesn't have the Guns N' Roses name to sell out arenas and Axl was out of the public eye and took too long to capitalize on new-Guns and Chinese Democracy. Both their careers are a mere shell of what it used to be. The piss contest that frequently occurs here is saddening. Defending individuals that you do not know, for no gain at all.