How Much Easier Would Axl's Life Have Been if He Went Solo?

[Rovim]

Not much easier.... the problem is not the music, the talent, the voice... Back in 1993, he had it all and he still had the looks to go out and be the biggest rockstar of the 90's but the problems in his head, his personal life is what stopped him and probably he was scared of facing the rock industry with his solo name.

I never thought Axl would be so fragile, mentally fragile, as to hide for so many years... His insecurities killed his talent and we missed the best years of his life. Like someone said before, he ain't no Ozzy and gosh, he could have been Ozzy but it is those bullshits in his head that stopped him.

An Axl solo career, done in the right way, would have been amazing for his life and he may have returned fresh and cool to GN'R, if ever.... It is mental instability what prevented him from making more music, either solo or in GN'R. Years proved that with our without a band, Axl is not a prolific songwriter and musician.... I really wonder what he does all day long... Nowadays, people in their 50's sometimes are more active than in their 30's, but him...?

Axl was always very fragile. His problems were magnified cause he gained a lot of power and money in a young age and when he lost his partners, I think he felt betrayed, lost, and alone. Took a while to put it back together but it was too late to even get close to what he achieved with the old line up. It's sad how it all went down.

He was always insecure, but how did it kill his talent? disagree on that one.

Maybe Axl writes all the time and has written many songs, but he doesn't release them.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Rovim

[jbhutto]

As ppl have said, I don't know that it would've changed all that much. Would Axl really take criticism of his solo
material less seriously than criticism of the nuGnR output? Maybe. But he'd still be out to prove that he could
do it without Slash and would be battling against whatever other oppressive forces he creates for himself. Similar to Brian Wilson, I think he just collapsed under the magnitude of what it was he was trying to achieve.

Edited October 28, 2014 by jbhutto

[BangoSkank]

As ppl have said, I don't know that it would've changed all that much. Would Axl really take criticism of his solo

material less seriously than criticism of the nuGnR output? Maybe. But he'd still be out to prove that he could

do it without Slash and would be battling against whatever other oppressive forces he creates for himself. Similar to Brian Wilson, I think he just collapsed under the magnitude of what it was he was trying to achieve.

Well, I certainly think there would be a great deal less criticism of his music if he went solo. The general public would be a little more curious as to what his new stuff was like instead of dismissing it off-hand as having none of the old guys there, not sounding anything like the classic songs, etc.

The label would've been a lot easier to deal with too because the burden of it being nothing like the old band wouldn't have been there. The music could've been as wild as Axl wanted it and they could've sold it as Axl's crazy new project.

As people have said, hindsight is 20-20 though. Maybe it would've been even harder for him, who knows?

[wkuk04]

How how much money have GNR made Geffen/Universal.

[Apollo]

How how much money have GNR made Geffen/Universal.

I don't think anybody on this forum has inside information into Geffen/Univeral's financial records.

I'd guess the partnership has been financially beneficial to both sides.

No doubt they've made more money with GnR than they've made with many other bands that they invested hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars into that had album/careers that ended up failing. A label will often give a band a big bonus check, then fund their studio time, then pay for the recording and distribution process - only to see that album totally tank and the label won't recuperate their investment. But without the label's support, maybe that band's albums wouldn't have been distributed to thousands of record stores, they wouldn't have been able to afford to make a video or release a single, record an album, etc.

[GUNNER PT]

Axl chose the ropes, the hard way ... and that's so GN'R.

How is hiring a bunch of yes-men to play old hit songs on Vegas or have 10+ million from the label to make one record in 20 years the hard way?

GUNNER PT loves to make baseless, clueless statements like this but will never back them up. If I were you, I wouldn't expect a reply.

[wasted]

By keeping the name GNR and working within that entity he also got access to millions of dollars of Geffen funding that otherwise wouldn't have been available. Pretty cushy gig, going to a studio whenever you want to dick around with someone else footing the bill for 14 years.

Ant hit the nail on the head.

Keeping the name made it easy for Axl to get studio backing and to sell his tours/album.

Keeping the name was actually the easy route to go.

What I don't understand is why fight so hard to keep the name alive if he wasn't going to release new music under the GnR moniker?

At the end of the day all the matters is the quality of the music released.

If Axl released five killer albums after slash/duff had left, most of the people who complain about the "name" wouldn't be bringing that up all the time now.

But one album in 20 years and of course fans are going to complain about him keeping the name.

I really think the mistake was to not put out the Beavan record in 99. Whether the label thought it had a hit or not. Chi dem, The Blues would be enough. Or course oh my God, Silkworms, Riad may have thrown GNR fans off. It could have been a St Anger.

Mayne from Axls pov it was a one shot deal.

RTB probably helped the grandness and made them more GNR but with Bucket too the project has too much scope.

I think if they get CD II out before 2020 then it's a record a decade and that isn't so bad.

I would write the late 90s off to working out what to do, then getting a band together.

But maybe ripping through a Beavan record, then a RTB, then a Caram would have been better.

[wasted]

If they get CD II out before 2020 it will be 1 a decade.

I really think in not putting out the Beavan record the project got too big.

But once you step into the abandoned spaceship with Axl as the computer still running can you really expect by the book rock operations?

[Rodzilla72]

Sorry I don't have time to go through all the replies- can I assume someone's already hit this with one o' these?

How Much Easier Would Has Axl's Life Have Been if Since He Went Solo?

*Fixed

[DieselDaisy]

The stuff about the Beavan record is bollocks. The real reason Axl did not release CD in 1999, or 2001, or whatever year you care to mention, is laziness and fear.

[wasted]

How how much money have GNR made Geffen/Universal.

Every cd sold the rec company got 10 dollars.

Guns sold 100 million records. So they generated a billion dollars.

The band share about 10 percent of the profits. The rest distribution.

That's why the label could front 10 mil for CD. Easily off past profits and projected low sales of 4 mil. That's 40 mil for the label. That's why they backed Axl as GNR. All they needed was 1 Nov Rain.

I think with CD they looked at it like possible 3 mil sales that's 30 mil but we have to do promo which would be 10 mil for 3 vids. Screw it Best Buy give us 14 mil and we run. I guess they didn't think it would sell like AcDC?

Right now how bad are cd sales, same?

Edited October 29, 2014 by wasted

[Rovim]

By keeping the name GNR and working within that entity he also got access to millions of dollars of Geffen funding that otherwise wouldn't have been available. Pretty cushy gig, going to a studio whenever you want to dick around with someone else footing the bill for 14 years.

Ant hit the nail on the head.

Keeping the name made it easy for Axl to get studio backing and to sell his tours/album.

Keeping the name was actually the easy route to go.

What I don't understand is why fight so hard to keep the name alive if he wasn't going to release new music under the GnR moniker?

At the end of the day all the matters is the quality of the music released.

If Axl released five killer albums after slash/duff had left, most of the people who complain about the "name" wouldn't be bringing that up all the time now.

But one album in 20 years and of course fans are going to complain about him keeping the name.

I really think the mistake was to not put out the Beavan record in 99. Whether the label thought it had a hit or not. Chi dem, The Blues would be enough. Or course oh my God, Silkworms, Riad may have thrown GNR fans off. It could have been a St Anger.

Mayne from Axls pov it was a one shot deal.

RTB probably helped the grandness and made them more GNR but with Bucket too the project has too much scope.

I think if they get CD II out before 2020 then it's a record a decade and that isn't so bad.

I would write the late 90s off to working out what to do, then getting a band together.

But maybe ripping through a Beavan record, then a RTB, then a Caram would have been better.

It would have been better financially and mullet wise as well. Artistically, maybe more healthy to do it that way: 3 albums released and it's not a nightmare maybe. Also a very big advantage is to go out there, play the material (the 1999 beavan record for example) and then Axl was still in his prime, still a young frontman and he could have convinced more people it's not a joke.

But I don't know if it would have been as strong as Chinese. Chinese is all of those records in one, in a way. So you get something very interesting imo: you hear all of those sounds, all the people that worked on it, pieces of their work and how Axl put it together. I'm glad it's like that. I'm not too happy it went down like it did but it's not really just the quality that matters when all you have to listen to from new Guns are 15 songs. No matter how good I think they are, I still don't know if it was worth it to do it like that, but it's never been done before in that way, so it's kinda cool that someone did it and it doesn't sound like St. Anger.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Rovim

[Rovim]

If they get CD II out before 2020 it will be 1 a decade.

I really think in not putting out the Beavan record the project got too big.

But once you step into the abandoned spaceship with Axl as the computer still running can you really expect by the book rock operations?

Actually, I think 1 record a decade is pretty bad. Just gotten used to one album in 23 years. But I'll take it.

I agree with the Beavan thing (what a cool name for a producer) They like... worked on it and worked on it and it was 2 years? kinda "normal", Axl said he delivered it to the record company and they said not good enough.

Now... when you take into consideration just how insecure Axl was (still is) especially after what went down with Slash, and how he wanted to prove he can do it just as good and he doesn't need the old line up to make a proper Guns record, it makes sense to think he took the not good enough thing very seriously.

He said it was cool to hear or something, and I believe him, like he thought "great, they care about how good it is" even if they just wanted a hit, but I think he went in the studio again even more insecure, unsure of his own judgement now. Asked Bob Ezrin for feedback too. And Ezrin told him not ready, not good enough in other words. 3 songs lol. That didn't help either imo. Axl said to Ezrin he thought it was done, but his actions after that don't back up that reply at all.

It's also different producers coming in with their own idea of how good it should sound, and new guitar players coming in and Axl wanting to use their talent and style to make it better. Natural for any musician to want to make it better, but Axl had to compete with old Guns, and the standard now was very high. Like there were so many ways it could have been not good enough, so let's try everything just in case.

I also agree Axl saw it as a one time thing, only one chance to sell it. Maybe in life, if you're chasing an ideal for too long, you lose anyway cause you're so deep into getting it just right, that timing goes out the window, and your initial goal is neglected.

In Axl's case, the inital goal was to keep Guns alive and get the fans to accept new Guns. A new Guns album in 1999 would have sold much more, people would have given it a chance at least cause Axl would have performed it live, but even if he did it that way, there was still a big chance to fail imo.

What he managed to do is make the music he wanted to make and created a great album that is unique imo. But the price was high for him and for us too.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Rovim

[wasted]

By keeping the name GNR and working within that entity he also got access to millions of dollars of Geffen funding that otherwise wouldn't have been available. Pretty cushy gig, going to a studio whenever you want to dick around with someone else footing the bill for 14 years.

Ant hit the nail on the head.

Keeping the name made it easy for Axl to get studio backing and to sell his tours/album.

Keeping the name was actually the easy route to go.

What I don't understand is why fight so hard to keep the name alive if he wasn't going to release new music under the GnR moniker?

At the end of the day all the matters is the quality of the music released.

If Axl released five killer albums after slash/duff had left, most of the people who complain about the "name" wouldn't be bringing that up all the time now.

But one album in 20 years and of course fans are going to complain about him keeping the name.

I really think the mistake was to not put out the Beavan record in 99. Whether the label thought it had a hit or not. Chi dem, The Blues would be enough. Or course oh my God, Silkworms, Riad may have thrown GNR fans off. It could have been a St Anger.

Mayne from Axls pov it was a one shot deal.

RTB probably helped the grandness and made them more GNR but with Bucket too the project has too much scope.

I think if they get CD II out before 2020 then it's a record a decade and that isn't so bad.

I would write the late 90s off to working out what to do, then getting a band together.

But maybe ripping through a Beavan record, then a RTB, then a Caram would have been better.

It would have been better financially and mullet wise as well. Artistically, maybe more healthy to do it that way: 3 albums released and it's not a nightmare maybe. Also a very big advantage is to go out there, play the material (the 1999 beavan record for example) and then Axl was still in his prime, still a young frontman and he could have convince more people it's not a joke.

But I don't know if it would have been as strong as Chinese. Chinese is all of those record in one, in a way. So you get something very interesting imo: you hear all of those sounds, all the people that worked on it, pieces of their work and how Axl put it together. I'm glad it's like that. I'm not too happy it went down like it did but it's not really just the quality that matters when all you have to listen to from new Guns are 15 songs. No matter how good I think they are, I still don't know if it was worth it to do it like that, but it's never been done before in that way, so it's kinda cool that someone did it and it doesn't sound like St. Anger.

I think the final product we got is better, but people built up so much hate towards it based on the process and just not knowing why it's not out that it became self fulfilling. And the nobody has really done anything like this. It's pretty over powering, not that many people can get into how down and out Axl sounds. It's not very metal. "Yeah! Fuck you lonely tear drops motherfucker!" has never been shouted out a car window at 3am.

I mean becomes the St Anger of GNR. The industrial experiment or art record that no one likes. Was it a one shot deal, where if CD Beavan gets a kicking then it's over and the label wouldn't support or put out CD II - even if it has Better/TWAT/Catcher on it. Then you'd get Shackler's, ITW, This I Love, Prostitute on CD III.

Same journey, more filler tracks, more business acumen.

But Axl did it his way so 2018…CD II?

[Rovim]

By keeping the name GNR and working within that entity he also got access to millions of dollars of Geffen funding that otherwise wouldn't have been available. Pretty cushy gig, going to a studio whenever you want to dick around with someone else footing the bill for 14 years.

Ant hit the nail on the head.

Keeping the name made it easy for Axl to get studio backing and to sell his tours/album.

Keeping the name was actually the easy route to go.

What I don't understand is why fight so hard to keep the name alive if he wasn't going to release new music under the GnR moniker?

At the end of the day all the matters is the quality of the music released.

If Axl released five killer albums after slash/duff had left, most of the people who complain about the "name" wouldn't be bringing that up all the time now.

But one album in 20 years and of course fans are going to complain about him keeping the name.

I really think the mistake was to not put out the Beavan record in 99. Whether the label thought it had a hit or not. Chi dem, The Blues would be enough. Or course oh my God, Silkworms, Riad may have thrown GNR fans off. It could have been a St Anger.

Mayne from Axls pov it was a one shot deal.

RTB probably helped the grandness and made them more GNR but with Bucket too the project has too much scope.

I think if they get CD II out before 2020 then it's a record a decade and that isn't so bad.

I would write the late 90s off to working out what to do, then getting a band together.

But maybe ripping through a Beavan record, then a RTB, then a Caram would have been better.

It would have been better financially and mullet wise as well. Artistically, maybe more healthy to do it that way: 3 albums released and it's not a nightmare maybe. Also a very big advantage is to go out there, play the material (the 1999 beavan record for example) and then Axl was still in his prime, still a young frontman and he could have convince more people it's not a joke.

But I don't know if it would have been as strong as Chinese. Chinese is all of those record in one, in a way. So you get something very interesting imo: you hear all of those sounds, all the people that worked on it, pieces of their work and how Axl put it together. I'm glad it's like that. I'm not too happy it went down like it did but it's not really just the quality that matters when all you have to listen to from new Guns are 15 songs. No matter how good I think they are, I still don't know if it was worth it to do it like that, but it's never been done before in that way, so it's kinda cool that someone did it and it doesn't sound like St. Anger.

I think the final product we got is better, but people built up so much hate towards it based on the process and just not knowing why it's not out that it became self fulfilling. And the nobody has really done anything like this. It's pretty over powering, not that many people can get into how down and out Axl sounds. It's not very metal. "Yeah! Fuck you lonely tear drops motherfucker!" has never been shouted out a car window at 3am.

I mean becomes the St Anger of GNR. The industrial experiment or art record that no one likes. Was it a one shot deal, where if CD Beavan gets a kicking then it's over and the label wouldn't support or put out CD II - even if it has Better/TWAT/Catcher on it. Then you'd get Shackler's, ITW, This I Love, Prostitute on CD III.

Same journey, more filler tracks, more business acumen.

But Axl did it his way so 2018…CD II?

Those fuckers can stew in their own vomit. I'm rocking CD twice a day, bitch.

Axl did what he liked musically. Hard to believe people can't even understand that after Slash, Izzy, and Duff left, it's natural that it'll sound more like Axl's influences, or at least some of the songs, on some parts are less look at me rocking out. The Seymour weepin'. You must embrace it. A crucial element of the new Guns sound.

CD ll chances of sucking are close to zero. Not gonna happen. Feeling optimistic today so 2016, 2017.

Song titles play with my mind. A very weird feeling to imagine how it will sound. Like I did before the Chinese leaks. Robin's SRV solo? Ashba shrugged.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Rovim

[wasted]

If they get CD II out before 2020 it will be 1 a decade.

I really think in not putting out the Beavan record the project got too big.

But once you step into the abandoned spaceship with Axl as the computer still running can you really expect by the book rock operations?

Actually, I think 1 record a decade is pretty bad. Just gotten used to one album in 23 years. But I'll take it.

I agree with the Beavan thing (what a cool name for a producer) They like... worked on it and worked on it and it was 2 years? kinda "normal", Axl said he delivered it to the record company and they said not good enough.

Now... when you take into consideration just how insecure Axl was (still is) especially after what went down with Slash, and how he wanted to prove he can do it just as good and he doesn't need the old line up to make a proper Guns record, it makes sense to think he took the not good enough thing very seriously.

He said it was cool to hear or something, and I believe him, like he thought "great, they care about how good it is" even if they just wanted a hit, but I think he went in the studio again even more insecure, unsure of his own judgement now. Asked Bob Ezrin for feedback too. And Ezrin told him not ready, not good enough in other words. 3 songs lol. That didn't help either imo. Axl said to Ezrin he thought it was done, but his actions after that don't back up that reply at all.

It's also different producers coming in with their own idea of how good it should sound, and new guitar players coming in and Axl wanting to use their talent and style to make it better. Natural for any musician to want to make it better, but Axl had to compete with old Guns, and the standard now was very high. Like there were so many ways it could have been not good enough, so let's try everything just in case.

I also agree Axl saw it as a one time thing, only one chance to sell it. Maybe in life, if you're chasing an ideal for too long, you lose anyway cause you're so deep into getting it just right, that timing goes out the window, and your initial goal is neglected.

In Axl's case, the inital goal was to keep Guns alive and get the fans to accept new Guns. A new Guns album in 1999 would have sold much more, people would have given it a chance at least cause Axl would have performed it live, but even if he did it that way, there was still a big chance to fail imo.

What he managed to do is make the music he wanted to make and created a great album that is unique imo. But the price was high for him and for us too.

I've thought about that too. And I came to the conclusion that GNR could have possibly done their In through the out Door and Presence, maybe. But they were always going to end up in Vegas with all the other bands or basically touring the hits. So whether you rate the Stones-period (a lot don't) or Latter day Zepp (maybe that's what CD is anyway) they were just going to tour. There's no band touring around with super aura, they all have new singers or playing vegas or just aren't that big.

So what did we actually miss? 3 or 4 amazing classic line up GNR albums? Probably not. The slump was waiting.

So to get something as unique as CD was pretty amazing. And if there's another cd then that's shaping up for a strong finish.

[wasted]

By keeping the name GNR and working within that entity he also got access to millions of dollars of Geffen funding that otherwise wouldn't have been available. Pretty cushy gig, going to a studio whenever you want to dick around with someone else footing the bill for 14 years.

Ant hit the nail on the head.

Keeping the name made it easy for Axl to get studio backing and to sell his tours/album.

Keeping the name was actually the easy route to go.

What I don't understand is why fight so hard to keep the name alive if he wasn't going to release new music under the GnR moniker?

At the end of the day all the matters is the quality of the music released.

If Axl released five killer albums after slash/duff had left, most of the people who complain about the "name" wouldn't be bringing that up all the time now.

But one album in 20 years and of course fans are going to complain about him keeping the name.

I really think the mistake was to not put out the Beavan record in 99. Whether the label thought it had a hit or not. Chi dem, The Blues would be enough. Or course oh my God, Silkworms, Riad may have thrown GNR fans off. It could have been a St Anger.

Mayne from Axls pov it was a one shot deal.

RTB probably helped the grandness and made them more GNR but with Bucket too the project has too much scope.

I think if they get CD II out before 2020 then it's a record a decade and that isn't so bad.

I would write the late 90s off to working out what to do, then getting a band together.

But maybe ripping through a Beavan record, then a RTB, then a Caram would have been better.

It would have been better financially and mullet wise as well. Artistically, maybe more healthy to do it that way: 3 albums released and it's not a nightmare maybe. Also a very big advantage is to go out there, play the material (the 1999 beavan record for example) and then Axl was still in his prime, still a young frontman and he could have convince more people it's not a joke.

But I don't know if it would have been as strong as Chinese. Chinese is all of those record in one, in a way. So you get something very interesting imo: you hear all of those sounds, all the people that worked on it, pieces of their work and how Axl put it together. I'm glad it's like that. I'm not too happy it went down like it did but it's not really just the quality that matters when all you have to listen to from new Guns are 15 songs. No matter how good I think they are, I still don't know if it was worth it to do it like that, but it's never been done before in that way, so it's kinda cool that someone did it and it doesn't sound like St. Anger.

I think the final product we got is better, but people built up so much hate towards it based on the process and just not knowing why it's not out that it became self fulfilling. And the nobody has really done anything like this. It's pretty over powering, not that many people can get into how down and out Axl sounds. It's not very metal. "Yeah! Fuck you lonely tear drops motherfucker!" has never been shouted out a car window at 3am.

I mean becomes the St Anger of GNR. The industrial experiment or art record that no one likes. Was it a one shot deal, where if CD Beavan gets a kicking then it's over and the label wouldn't support or put out CD II - even if it has Better/TWAT/Catcher on it. Then you'd get Shackler's, ITW, This I Love, Prostitute on CD III.

Same journey, more filler tracks, more business acumen.

But Axl did it his way so 2018…CD II?

Those fuckers can stew in their own vomit. I'm rocking CD twice a day, bitch.

Axl did what he liked musically. Hard to believe people can't even understand that after Slash, Izzy, and Duff left, it's natural that it'll sound more like Axl's influences, or at least some of the songs, on some parts are less look at me rocking out. The Seymour weepin'. You must embrace it. A crucial element of the new Guns sound.

CD ll chances of sucking are close to zero. Not gonna happen. Feeling optimistic today so 2016, 2017.

Song titles play with my mind. A very weird feeling to imagine how it will sound. Like I did before the Chinese leaks. Robin's SRV solo? Ashba shrugged.

There's not that much weeping. I'm not entirely sure which tracks are Seymour. I think SOD and TWAT not sure about the others?

Seems like it would be the same. Maybe different influences. I'm interested to hear more Freese songs. Fortus, Bucket, Finck too.

Axl working with different musicians will sound different, it seems like 90s Alt rock to me. Even the cover looks like an AIC meets Beggars Banquet cover.

[Rovim]

If the old line up tried to make an album right away, it would have failed imo. But you know, if they took a break, and released an album in 1998 for example...hard to even imagine how a good Guns album with Slash, Izzy, and Duff would have sounded like in the end of the 90's.

The old themes were well mined. Slash? not interesed in doing something different really. He liked his metally hard rock thing.

Izzy also does the same kind of thing. Maybe Axl could have used Izzy riffs and Slash riffs and solos, but he would just want to turn it to something else like May's Catcher's solo probably. I see more personal hurdles and musical ones in that scenario: Axl's influences are more varied. His themes center around what ballads can frame well.

Slash and Duff didn't even want to do November Rain and Estranged according to Axl. (but Fall To Pieces, Loving The Alien, and Gotten are fair game lol)

No one will ever know. Axl got Slash tapes in his vault. Said everything sounds like Slash blues rock. The media would have called a potential 1998 old Guns record "dated"?

It's possible or not enough Gn'R if Axl would have taken artistic control? the last Skid Row album sounded weird. Like they were trying to be something they weren't, but this is Gn'R, but still...I can't see it working but maybe.

[wasted]

maybe by 99, if they worked on it, but I can't see it, UYI 3 wouldn't cut it. The whole ballad video thing was over? Late 90s kind of blurry for me. Everything seemed over.

I remember thinking Eminem and Kid Rock kind of filled Axl's role in the landscape. Nobody wanted such an abrasive guy up. They wanted a cuter version. Fred Durst. Korn. GNR weren't funky enough.

To me it seemed like around 2004 when people were up for a new GNR album. The reunion would have been awesome at that point.

Edited October 29, 2014 by wasted

[Teroz]

None.

This is how he operates, no solo career or different band mates would make a difference - not even David Lee Roth, Prince, Ashlee Simpson and Paul Huge combined.

A real difference at least. Same old thing, not matter what he would need time to put "this monstrosity" together.

[Rovim]

maybe by 99, if they worked on it, but I can't see it, UYI 3 wouldn't cut it. The whole ballad video thing was over? Late 90s kind of blurry for me. Everything seemed over.

I remember thinking Eminem and Kid Rock kind of filled Axl's role in the landscape. Nobody wanted such an abrasive guy up. They wanted a cuter version. Fred Durst. Korn. GNR weren't funky enough.

To me it seemed like around 2004 when people were up for a new GNR album. The reunion would have been awesome at that point.

We're disecting bodies over here.

[wasted]

maybe by 99, if they worked on it, but I can't see it, UYI 3 wouldn't cut it. The whole ballad video thing was over? Late 90s kind of blurry for me. Everything seemed over.

I remember thinking Eminem and Kid Rock kind of filled Axl's role in the landscape. Nobody wanted such an abrasive guy up. They wanted a cuter version. Fred Durst. Korn. GNR weren't funky enough.

To me it seemed like around 2004 when people were up for a new GNR album. The reunion would have been awesome at that point.

We're disecting bodies over here.

Alive or dead?

GNR's corpse smells of Marlboros and JD.

[Rovim]

maybe by 99, if they worked on it, but I can't see it, UYI 3 wouldn't cut it. The whole ballad video thing was over? Late 90s kind of blurry for me. Everything seemed over.

I remember thinking Eminem and Kid Rock kind of filled Axl's role in the landscape. Nobody wanted such an abrasive guy up. They wanted a cuter version. Fred Durst. Korn. GNR weren't funky enough.

To me it seemed like around 2004 when people were up for a new GNR album. The reunion would have been awesome at that point.

We're disecting bodies over here.

Alive or dead?

GNR's corpse smells of Marlboros and JD.

Just imagine how much better Axl is at it. Think of the iceberg. CD ll should come with a free 500 page book. The Iceberg: just the tip, part 2.

[wasted]

maybe by 99, if they worked on it, but I can't see it, UYI 3 wouldn't cut it. The whole ballad video thing was over? Late 90s kind of blurry for me. Everything seemed over.

I remember thinking Eminem and Kid Rock kind of filled Axl's role in the landscape. Nobody wanted such an abrasive guy up. They wanted a cuter version. Fred Durst. Korn. GNR weren't funky enough.

To me it seemed like around 2004 when people were up for a new GNR album. The reunion would have been awesome at that point.

We're disecting bodies over here.

Alive or dead?

GNR's corpse smells of Marlboros and JD.

Just imagine how much better Axl is at it. Think of the iceberg. CD ll should come with a free 500 page book. The Iceberg: just the tip, part 2.

Maybe I do need Axls book to fuel the next 40k posts. Or would the wild speculating finally end when we get the definitive answer.

Dexter probably cut people up alive.

I'm kind of against rock bios although I read them all the time. All the cupcakes down in the front row needed a new Ratt album.

[Rovim]

I feel like nothing will shut me up. Not even CD ll cause what about CD lll?

But an Axl book? I think he might have a problem with releasing a book when he can just explain himself piece by piece when he feels like it on the net or not.

I'm pro rock bios myself, but only the ones with integrity. So Tommy Lee all the way. Duff's was good, I just felt like I'm in a classroom with tatoos and a bow tie learning to be a better man and he's my dad.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Rovim