Jump to content

Do you think Axl ever regrets keeping the name?


Vincent Vega

Recommended Posts

That's how I feel seeing DJ play Sweet Child O Mine or Better. Ron playing Estranged. It wouldn't be so cringeworthy if they weren't pretending to be GNR while doing it. Under Axl solo playing these songs wouldn't be bad.

Hoe does Bumblefoot "pretend to be GNR"? He IS a member of Guns N' Roses and there is nothing about his dress or playing style that reminds me of ANY former members. Hence, he both IS part of GN'R and he IS clearly distinct from any predecessors with no apparently inclination to imitate them.

:violin:

You're not going to explain your cryptic claim that Bumblefoot "pretends to be GNR"? Perhaps he plays Estranged too close to how Slash played that song, is that it?

This conversation has happened a million times. The guitar is too attached to Slash on songs like SCOM and Estranged for me that it's awkward seeing someone else play it. Ron plays it technically great, my buddy plays SCOM technically great. Big whoop. I haven't watched more than 3 videos of this new band doing those songs because as soon as the guitar starts I cringe. I cringe during Myles' chorus' of Civil War too but it's a bit more tolerable considering they're just playing it as a different band. Hearing DJ walk out and play SCOM... as GNR... is weird. Period. Same with DJ doing Better, not Finck. I haven't watched a single video of Better since 2006 because it's a joke seeing DJ do it to me. Now tell me how incorrect, lacking evidence, stupid, illogical and whatever else you can come up with this is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Do you think Axl has ever regretted keeping the GN'R name--even just for a moment? IMO, it's hurt him more than helped him.

At every turn, EVERYTHING he does will ALWAYS be compared to the old band, whether it be live shows, the members of the band being compared to Slash, Izzy, Duff, etc, CD being put up against the old albums etc.

It limits him musically because he's forced to tailor his music to make it sound more like GN'R.

He's forced to rely on setlists which heavily feature old GNR songs because most people going to a "GUNS N' ROSES" show will want and expect the old songs; If he doesn't play all the old hits from the old band, people would be disappointed. When the new band does play them, they're criticized and bashed if they don't play the songs note for note like the originals.

Every band member he hires has and will be negatively compared to the old band members--And they get tons of abuse, hate and negativity thrown toward them just for joining the band.

Not only that, but if he ever decides to make another record, he has the immense pressure of making a record that lives up to and is worthy of the GN'R name. He has to "show" Slash and the others that he can succeed as Guns because of his psychological complexes.

If GN'R had just broken up in 1996 and Axl had started a new band or went solo, he would've been much freer to make whatever kind of music he wanted, play whatever songs he chose to live, we probably would've had several albums from him by now, there wouldn't have been as much anticipation and label pressure, members of an Axl band wouldn't have been as compared to Slash and the others. He wouldn't have had the burden of "being GN'R" all by himself. He could've fully indulged all his creative desires without the pressure of making a "GN'R album", which might've resulted in some really awesome stuff which was made more organically. And he wouldn't be as hated as he is. People don't hate him so much for GNR's breakup, but for continuing to use the GN'R name after everyone else left. It's like the Beatles break up. Paul arguably was the main force in the Beatles' break up but no one hates him because he went on to make some good music on his own and he didn't tour with faceless musicians as The Beatles. If GNR had formally broken up in '96 and Axl started his own project, it'd be the same.

In the end, keeping the name has cost him more in terms of creative freedom, in terms of expectations, in terms of his reputation and legacy, and in terms of label bullshit than if he just went solo. Yeah he makes more money but surely as a musician all the other problems outweigh the money aspect. I do wonder if it ever crosses his mind and if he ever does feel the GNR name is more a curse than a blessing?

Regrets it? Far from it. He enjoys living in California mansion.

And yes, he was tailoring the music at that time, but I don't think he was limiting himself.

GNR had identifiable people in the band, not just one person. If Axl was the sole songwriter and created the bulk of the music, people would have a far different opinion of all of this.

But for someone that wanted to move on from the past, doing a setlist heavily weighted on Appetite is relying on the past to put asses in seats. If you go see Neil Young, you really don't know if he's going to do "Cinnamon Girl" or do 2 hours of obscure shit. If someone sees Prince, they get more of a hits setlist, but at some past shows, he might do a medley where he blazed through them and did a setlist of recent stuff and jams.

He didn't release enough music to bury the past, and had he kept putting new music out in the past couple of years, he'd be able to move on from AFD, or at least make them the encores.

I think the more Slash puts music out, we might see more VR songs show up, which is fine for Myles' voice, and there's a few GNR songs he has to do, but it's better to have the choice than have it expected.

GNR should have gone on an indefinite break after TSI?. I just think at that time, he should have worked things out with Izzy, Slash, and Duff as people, get their personal shit sorted out, then in '99, maybe '01, and get back together to work on new music.

A lot of people in bands aren't friends. Sometimes it's better when they're not, because it doesn't get personal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regrets keeping the name? Hell no. It is the only thing that is keeping the revenue generating. I guarantee his ticket sales would drop if it went from "Guns N' Roses" to the "Axl Rose Band." I guarantee it.

This :thumbsup: Axl can be called a lot of things but dumb is not one of them. He wanted the name and he got it. He never regrets anything he does because in his mind he never does anything wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regrets keeping the name? Hell no. It is the only thing that is keeping the revenue generating. I guarantee his ticket sales would drop if it went from "Guns N' Roses" to the "Axl Rose Band." I guarantee it.

Of course. Case in point being Slash: he went from playing to tens of thousands to playing to a few hundred (?) after quitting GN'R and starting his "Slash Band".

I honestly believe Axl continued with the band despite losing Izzy and Slash because he had a vision, not by greed. He obviously isn't motivated by cash primarily, because then he would just reunite with the UYI lineup. So to all those that say he "kept the name" because of money: what do you base this on? Where is the evidence that he was motivated by greed and not by an artistic vision or a feeling of responsibility?

The "Slash Band"! Slash may not be playing to the same amount of people he did when he was in guns but Axl and his replacements are not either. And take your hundreds and make it thousands. And when this turns into an Axl vs Slash fight blame yourself because you started it!

Edited by sleeper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regrets keeping the name? Hell no. It is the only thing that is keeping the revenue generating. I guarantee his ticket sales would drop if it went from "Guns N' Roses" to the "Axl Rose Band." I guarantee it.

Of course. Case in point being Slash: he went from playing to tens of thousands to playing to a few hundred (?) after quitting GN'R and starting his "Slash Band".

I honestly believe Axl continued with the band despite losing Izzy and Slash because he had a vision, not by greed. He obviously isn't motivated by cash primarily, because then he would just reunite with the UYI lineup. So to all those that say he "kept the name" because of money: what do you base this on? Where is the evidence that he was motivated by greed and not by an artistic vision or a feeling of responsibility?

Axl's still enough of an artist to not primarily be money motivated. To me it's more about his controlling nature as far as the name goes.

He refused to scale the show down, as he said in the LA Times interview. He played an infrequently used venue, even though the Sports Arena in downtown LA is prob. the most infrequently used one, but LA Forum was prob. cheap as hell to rent out, bands use it for rehearsals before going on tour. But a lot of those venues are old, but because they don't have the levels of box seats, they're actually great places to see bands and sometimes feels like you're seeing them play a club size show.

I think the live shows are costly to run, and what GNR actually make on the road is prob. a nice chunk of change, but he'd prob be making more money sitting at home licensing out the back catalog.

If he reunited with the guys, they would be asking for way more money than the guys in the band now get, esp. if they agreed to be on salary. Outside of a one-off where money's not involved, or going towards a charity, working out a reunion would take more lawyers and money. Unfortunately, what was easy to do in 1985 involves way more people in 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regrets keeping the name? Hell no. It is the only thing that is keeping the revenue generating. I guarantee his ticket sales would drop if it went from "Guns N' Roses" to the "Axl Rose Band." I guarantee it.

Of course. Case in point being Slash: he went from playing to tens of thousands to playing to a few hundred (?) after quitting GN'R and starting his "Slash Band".

See. People always complain about discussion of old members here but this is brought up out of the blue. WTF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AXL ROSE - no wife,no kids,most of the fans dont care about CD

the GNR name is the only thing he has :violin:

and Axl has you ... talking about him and taking care about his life :kiss:

Are you really retarded or do you pretend to be? Because you are one of the weirdest people I have ever seen.

She hopes to be Axl's wife one day :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regrets keeping the name? Hell no. It is the only thing that is keeping the revenue generating. I guarantee his ticket sales would drop if it went from "Guns N' Roses" to the "Axl Rose Band." I guarantee it.

Of course. Case in point being Slash: he went from playing to tens of thousands to playing to a few hundred (?) after quitting GN'R and starting his "Slash Band".

See. People always complain about discussion of old members here but this is brought up out of the blue. WTF?

The only way that would make sense would be if I was one of those always complaining about old members being discussed. I am not. I guess you have me mixed up with someone else. Besides, it was relevant to the discussion at hand because it provided with an example of what could potentially happen to Axl's revenues would he quit GN'R and instead form a solo band. I am sorry you didn't see the relevance, but not surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may not necessarily be a bad thing. Think of the George Lucas effect.

I think is a bad thing. Let's say after Slash left, Axl and Duff, who were now the last remaining original members, decided to simply break the GN'R name up rather than continue it, and Axl either started a new band, or went solo, he'd have had creative freedom. I kind of want to see what a solo Axl record inspired by Grunge and Industrial would've sounded like. But in keeping the name there were certain expectations and I believe the CD we eventually got is a compromise between his more experimental side and a "GN'R-ish" sound. He himself said if he ever went solo his works would be a lot more experimental, a lot more instrumental, etc. That would imply that when working with the GN'R name, he feels there's certain borders or a certain sort of rubric of what makes the GN'R sound, to him. Something that'd be different from a pure, unadulterated record unaffected by both the burden of the name, and massive anticipation. I also think he'd have had things a lot easier if he'd just went the solo route or started a totally new band--Easier as far as the label, as far as the fans, as far as the demands and pressure. Yeah, he makes more money using the GN'R name, I get it. But I'm talking more on a creative end here. Consider how in this very thread someone said that their perspective on new members is framed by the fact that they're playing under the "GUNS N' ROSES" name, and that in essence they'd accept the players more if they were playing with Axl under a different name--That is what I'm talking about, that sort of thing. With a new band, or going solo, there wouldn't be any baggage, any major pressure, any demands from the label really outside of the norm, and fans would be more accepting. It'd have allowed Axl to really get whatever he wanted to do out of his system like Slash, Duff, Izzy and Gilby all did. They all went into their solo projects while in GN'R to reduce their level of stress, as well as because it was less limiting creatively, and it worked out for them.

Axl had a vision and ideas and released part of that vision when he released Oh My God. Oh My God was released under the Guns N' Roses name, but it didn't sound like "Guns N' Roses" and hence the public didn't accept it--And actually shunned it because they were expecting "Guns N' Roses" to sound like the UYIs or AFD. And so Axl went back and apparently made two or three different versions of CD and tailored/curtailed his own creative vision to better suit what people would expect from a "GN'R record". Perhaps if OMG had been released under his own name, people would've responded to it better as it wouldn't have all the expectations, baggage and preconceived feelings that people associate with the name "GUNS N' Roses". It wouldn't have been judged as an "Axl as the last man standing in GN'R" song, but simply as a solo work by Axl Rose, who was well known to be really into industrial.

People wouldn't hate Axl as much, or hate his band, or hate the concerts, or hate what he puts out as much if it didn't have the name GN'R attached. For many people that name is attached to a lot of memories, a lot of preconceived notions, a lot of memories, and a lot of feelings about what GN'R means and what it should be. You wouldn't see the rancor that many here hold for the man if he'd never made a "new GNR". And I think (and I believe Marc Canter also said this at some point), if Axl had went solo, we would've had more albums released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regrets keeping the name? Hell no. It is the only thing that is keeping the revenue generating. I guarantee his ticket sales would drop if it went from "Guns N' Roses" to the "Axl Rose Band." I guarantee it.

Of course. Case in point being Slash: he went from playing to tens of thousands to playing to a few hundred (?) after quitting GN'R and starting his "Slash Band".

See. People always complain about discussion of old members here but this is brought up out of the blue. WTF?

The only way that would make sense would be if I was one of those always complaining about old members being discussed. I am not. I guess you have me mixed up with someone else. Besides, it was relevant to the discussion at hand because it provided with an example of what could potentially happen to Axl's revenues would he quit GN'R and instead form a solo band. I am sorry you didn't see the relevance, but not surprised.

Bullshit this thread is fixing to turn into another argument and you are the one that caused it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

With the name he has: (1) recorded loads of material in the direction/style he wanted; (2) released an album that though by no means the MEGA successes that AFD and UYI were still shifted respectable numbers in this era and went platinum or gold in numerous countries and received generally favorable reviews; (3) fronts a successful live line-up that is well-received and is still welcome in arenas all-over the world; and (4) has assembled a "team" around him both in players and management/entourage that he seems to trust 100% and gets to have a blast with touring the world and partying their asses off.

It's hardly perfect- and carrying on as "Guns N' Roses" certainly comes with its complications (e.g. constant comparisons, reunion questions, RNRHOF, etc.).- but it honestly seems to me that 15 years on he's found a "comfort zone" of sorts and seems fairly content (some would argue too content) with life and not walking around with too many regrets.

I think we sometime make the mistake in thinking Axl's disappointed that GN'R is not back to the insane heights of 91-93. However, it seems to me he's much more comfortable with a more "normal" level of success/fame that can sustain his lifestyle without being too much of a burden in other ways...

Edited by AXL_N_DIZZY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regrets keeping the name? Hell no. It is the only thing that is keeping the revenue generating. I guarantee his ticket sales would drop if it went from "Guns N' Roses" to the "Axl Rose Band." I guarantee it.

Of course. Case in point being Slash: he went from playing to tens of thousands to playing to a few hundred (?) after quitting GN'R and starting his "Slash Band".

See. People always complain about discussion of old members here but this is brought up out of the blue. WTF?

The only way that would make sense would be if I was one of those always complaining about old members being discussed. I am not. I guess you have me mixed up with someone else. Besides, it was relevant to the discussion at hand because it provided with an example of what could potentially happen to Axl's revenues would he quit GN'R and instead form a solo band. I am sorry you didn't see the relevance, but not surprised.

Bullshit this thread is fixing to turn into another argument and you are the one that caused it!

No, it was relevant to the topic. We discussed what would happen to Axl's revenues if he were to quit the band and go solo, and what better way to do this than be providing a close example instead of just doing unqualified musing? Of course Axl might be more talented than Slash and hence able to do a solo thing with more success, but we don't know that. If we just assume they are equally talented then, by looking at Slash's career trajectory, we can guess that Axl would go from doing shows with many thousands of fans to a few hundreds, and his revenues would drop accordingly. He might also experience the same amount of drop in album sales numbers from any material he might release as a solo artist, just like Slash has done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may not necessarily be a bad thing. Think of the George Lucas effect.

I think is a bad thing. Let's say after Slash left, Axl and Duff, who were now the last remaining original members, decided to simply break the GN'R name up rather than continue it, and Axl either started a new band, or went solo, he'd have had creative freedom. I kind of want to see what a solo Axl record inspired by Grunge and Industrial would've sounded like. But in keeping the name there were certain expectations and I believe the CD we eventually got is a compromise between his more experimental side and a "GN'R-ish" sound. He himself said if he ever went solo his works would be a lot more experimental, a lot more instrumental, etc. That would imply that when working with the GN'R name, he feels there's certain borders or a certain sort of rubric of what makes the GN'R sound, to him. Something that'd be different from a pure, unadulterated record unaffected by both the burden of the name, and massive anticipation. I also think he'd have had things a lot easier if he'd just went the solo route or started a totally new band--Easier as far as the label, as far as the fans, as far as the demands and pressure. Yeah, he makes more money using the GN'R name, I get it. But I'm talking more on a creative end here. Consider how in this very thread someone said that their perspective on new members is framed by the fact that they're playing under the "GUNS N' ROSES" name, and that in essence they'd accept the players more if they were playing with Axl under a different name--That is what I'm talking about, that sort of thing. With a new band, or going solo, there wouldn't be any baggage, any major pressure, any demands from the label really outside of the norm, and fans would be more accepting. It'd have allowed Axl to really get whatever he wanted to do out of his system like Slash, Duff, Izzy and Gilby all did. They all went into their solo projects while in GN'R to reduce their level of stress, as well as because it was less limiting creatively, and it worked out for them.

Axl had a vision and ideas and released part of that vision when he released Oh My God. Oh My God was released under the Guns N' Roses name, but it didn't sound like "Guns N' Roses" and hence the public didn't accept it--And actually shunned it because they were expecting "Guns N' Roses" to sound like the UYIs or AFD. And so Axl went back and apparently made two or three different versions of CD and tailored/curtailed his own creative vision to better suit what people would expect from a "GN'R record". Perhaps if OMG had been released under his own name, people would've responded to it better as it wouldn't have all the expectations, baggage and preconceived feelings that people associate with the name "GUNS N' Roses". It wouldn't have been judged as an "Axl as the last man standing in GN'R" song, but simply as a solo work by Axl Rose, who was well known to be really into industrial.

People wouldn't hate Axl as much, or hate his band, or hate the concerts, or hate what he puts out as much if it didn't have the name GN'R attached. For many people that name is attached to a lot of memories, a lot of preconceived notions, a lot of memories, and a lot of feelings about what GN'R means and what it should be. You wouldn't see the rancor that many here hold for the man if he'd never made a "new GNR". And I think (and I believe Marc Canter also said this at some point), if Axl had went solo, we would've had more albums released.

Excellent post! Agree 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he regretted keeping it, he wouldn't use it.

Despite all the bloviating anti-Axl assholes who constantly chastise him for everything, the fact is Axl knows what he's doing. He's not as removed from reality as his detractors would have us believe. The detractors just can't accept that Axl's extending his middle finger to them.

Of course we all know Slash feels like a total and complete dumbass for signing it over.

Edited by Popcorn's Snare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, I think he really believes he can take the name and the legacy forward... of course, he needs to record some stuff with this band to prove that and release it, of course.

Edited by Chewbacca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm pretty sure from his open letters and his statements on this very forum that he feels entirely entitled to keeping the name and was happy to have done so, in spite of all the negativity it's generated toward him. he feels like the others abandoned ship and left him with the burden of carrying on. furthermore, i do get the feeling that even back around '90/'91 axl was already feeling like he was in it by himself (hence his gradual seclusion from other bandmembers), and it was that emotional disconnect from the other group members that made it easier for him to just continue on with new guys and not see a problem with it like some fans do. he even said recently (i forget where, might have been on mygnr) that he saw the writing on the wall during the UYI tours that a break-up was going to happen and so he was prepared for it well ahead of time and had a plan of action for it.

agree or disagree with his reasoning, he feels that the band is a continuation of Guns N' Roses, and that "solo material" would sound a lot different -- again, some people may not agree with the reasoning, but i do think that's how he sees it...i think we can all agree when axl sets his mind on something he can be pretty stubborn about it, it's one of the things that sets his personality apart!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm pretty sure from his open letters and his statements on this very forum that he feels entirely entitled to keeping the name and was happy to have done so, in spite of all the negativity it's generated toward him. he feels like the others abandoned ship and left him with the burden of carrying on. furthermore, i do get the feeling that even back around '90/'91 axl was already feeling like he was in it by himself (hence his gradual seclusion from other bandmembers), and it was that emotional disconnect from the other group members that made it easier for him to just continue on with new guys and not see a problem with it like some fans do. he even said recently (i forget where, might have been on mygnr) that he saw the writing on the wall during the UYI tours that a break-up was going to happen and so he was prepared for it well ahead of time and had a plan of action for it.

agree or disagree with his reasoning, he feels that the band is a continuation of Guns N' Roses, and that "solo material" would sound a lot different -- again, some people may not agree with the reasoning, but i do think that's how he sees it...i think we can all agree when axl sets his mind on something he can be pretty stubborn about it, it's one of the things that sets his personality apart!

First post on this thread I agree with 100%. I get what Miser is trying to say as well, that Axl wouldn't have been as hated if he didn't continue with the band, but I don't think he regrets it as much as we think he does (or as much as some of us think he should).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's how I feel seeing DJ play Sweet Child O Mine or Better. Ron playing Estranged. It wouldn't be so cringeworthy if they weren't pretending to be GNR while doing it. Under Axl solo playing these songs wouldn't be bad.

Unless you felt the same way in '91 when Matt and Gilby were playing, I find your logic to be extremely inconsistent.

No, none of them acknowledge that Matt and Gilby are replacements. These fuckers consider the UYI lineup to be an extension of "original GnR," which is so annoying, especially for me because I was there. Somehow, Matt and Gilby get put on a magical pedestal.

Edited by Popcorn's Snare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's how I feel seeing DJ play Sweet Child O Mine or Better. Ron playing Estranged. It wouldn't be so cringeworthy if they weren't pretending to be GNR while doing it. Under Axl solo playing these songs wouldn't be bad.

Unless you felt the same way in '91 when Matt and Gilby were playing, I find your logic to be extremely inconsistent.

No, none of them acknowledge that Matt and Gilby are replacements. These fuckers consider the UYI lineup to be an extension of "original GnR," which is so annoying, especially for me because I was there. Somehow, Matt and Gilby get put on a magical pedestal.

I don't have that connection to the drum parts mostly, and like I said, it's only certain songs. The only drums I really dug from GNR were from UYI stuff anyhow save Brownstone which does have particularly cool drums. It's not so weird for Mr. Brownstone.... for whatever reason. It IS weird for SCOM, Estranged, WTTJ (solo), plenty of other songs.

I did feel that way with Gilby but it was balanced out sufficiently at the time with Axl, Slash, Duff and Matt who I came to accept.

Edited by The_Universal_Sigh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AXL ROSE - no wife,no kids,most of the fans dont care about CD

the GNR name is the only thing he has :violin:

and Axl has you ... talking about him and taking care about his life :kiss:

+1

Love you Angeles :kiss:

That's how I feel seeing DJ play Sweet Child O Mine or Better. Ron playing Estranged. It wouldn't be so cringeworthy if they weren't pretending to be GNR while doing it. Under Axl solo playing these songs wouldn't be bad.

Unless you felt the same way in '91 when Matt and Gilby were playing, I find your logic to be extremely inconsistent.

So true!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...