Jump to content

Replacing Axl???


Recommended Posts

BONO - I get the point you are making.

Without that core group, GnR has never been the same. And never would have been the same if one of the main members left.

I agree 100% with you.

I think we are arguing two different scenarios.

I agree, with a new singer - or a new band - GnR would never have been as good as they were.......as Guns n Roses.

My point is that they still would have been hugely successful, imo, as a BAND (regardless of name) if Axl had left after the first album.

Everybody on here proclaims Izzy as the heart and soul of GnR and the best rock songwriter of our generation (I know, I'm exaggerating). Slash is a guitar God. Duff is a fantastic band member - great bass player, good song writer, and just a very solid overall musician in terms of a band member.

With all the hype the band would have after Appetite.......with Izzy's song writing skills.........with guitar God Slash.............throw in Weiland or Bach or Patton or Wood in 1990? Skid Row's best album didn't come out until 1991 - Bach was at his absolute prime in 1990-91. Weiland was a young singer, full of passion and energy, on the cusp of becoming a superstar.

The top ranking rock songs of 1990 were songs by Alice in Chains, Jane's Addiction, AC/DC - F*cking Exteme, Black Crowes.

CREED was selling millions of albums in the 90s.

You don't think Slash/Duff/Izzy and Bach or Weiland would have been able to compete with Creed and Extreme and Janes Addiction?

People are essentially saying that the group of Slash/Duff/Izzy and Adler were a mediocre band and only having Axl around propelled them to success. And that is just ludicrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joke topic... Axl is Guns N' Roses. Not only was he the voice of Guns, He was the main songwriter. If he got fired all attention would've followed him and where he went. He would be considered innocent to the public and not carry the burdens he does now. Hell it might've helped his career. No longer painted as the bully who stole the Guns name.

Patton, fucking joke lol let me make some animal fart sounds in this mic and impress the kiddies, works everytime.

If Axl is GNR then please explain the monumental failure that is NuGNR and CD?

Axtually don't. There is no explaining it because Axl is not GNR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chad Kroger replaces Axl and it's a wrap people. We have the dream band.

Your point is valid from 2000-through-2015.

But not for the 90s.

Joke topic... Axl is Guns N' Roses. Not only was he the voice of Guns, He was the main songwriter. If he got fired all attention would've followed him and where he went. He would be considered innocent to the public and not carry the burdens he does now. Hell it might've helped his career. No longer painted as the bully who stole the Guns name.

Patton, fucking joke lol let me make some animal fart sounds in this mic and impress the kiddies, works everytime.

If Axl is GNR then please explain the monumental failure that is NuGNR and CD?

Axtually don't. There is no explaining it because Axl is not GNR.

Face, it's almost not even worth trying to engage with some of these people.

They clearly don't get it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott Weiland who was a complete nobody in 90 would have been a great choice as Axl`s replacement :facepalm:

Sigh. Your lack of music knowledge actually, at times, hurts my feelings. You obviously know how to operate a computer, and you clearly know how the internet works. Yet your lack of musical knowledge is shockingly inept.

Sit down, you might not know this. But in 1986, Axl Rose was a complete nobody. Every famous musician was - at one time - a complete nobody. But their talent ends up making them a "somebody."

Nobody touched GnR from 1988-1993. But for the entire decade of the 90s? GnR wasn't even the most successful or popular band for the decade. In fact, by 1992-93 a lot of the rock world was burnt out on the band and Axl's antics. In terms of success for the 90s, Stone Temple Pilots were at GnR's level. Were both bands at the same talent level - hell no. But unfortunately for Axl, his band stopped putting out music. STP put out albums. In the 90s, they won rock Grammys, they had number one albums, they had 16 top ten billboard rock hits in the 90s - more than GnR. From 1994 through 2000, STP was a bigger and more popular and more successful band than GnR.

So to say that Weiland couldn't have replaced Axl because he was a nobody......just shows your ignorance of rock music and the 90s decade. I'm willing to give you a break though, maybe you are one of our younger posters and you weren't alive back then.

Age card again how original I think your musical " knowledge" is flawed at best and it`s you who needs to do homework STP broke into the mainssteam in 92 with Core no one knew or gave two shits about Scott and STP in 90. Next time when you decide to quote me make sure to trim down the bullshit and keep your lectures to yourself.

Besides, OP clearly said if Axl had left in 1990 is it so difficult to understand ?

Edited by Ragnar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott Weiland who was a complete nobody in 90 would have been a great choice as Axl`s replacement :facepalm:

Sigh. Your lack of music knowledge actually, at times, hurts my feelings. You obviously know how to operate a computer, and you clearly know how the internet works. Yet your lack of musical knowledge is shockingly inept.

Sit down, you might not know this. But in 1986, Axl Rose was a complete nobody. Every famous musician was - at one time - a complete nobody. But their talent ends up making them a "somebody."

Nobody touched GnR from 1988-1993. But for the entire decade of the 90s? GnR wasn't even the most successful or popular band for the decade. In fact, by 1992-93 a lot of the rock world was burnt out on the band and Axl's antics. In terms of success for the 90s, Stone Temple Pilots were at GnR's level. Were both bands at the same talent level - hell no. But unfortunately for Axl, his band stopped putting out music. STP put out albums. In the 90s, they won rock Grammys, they had number one albums, they had 16 top ten billboard rock hits in the 90s - more than GnR. From 1994 through 2000, STP was a bigger and more popular and more successful band than GnR.

So to say that Weiland couldn't have replaced Axl because he was a nobody......just shows your ignorance of rock music and the 90s decade. I'm willing to give you a break though, maybe you are one of our younger posters and you weren't alive back then.

Age card again how original I think your musical " knowledge" is flawed at best and it`s you who needs to do homework STP broke into the mainssteam in 92 with Core no one knew or gave two shits about Scott and STP in 90. Next time when you decide to quote me make sure to trim down the bullshit and keep your lectures to yourself.

Besides, OP clearly said if Axl had left in 1990 is it so difficult to understand ?

Per usual, you completely miss the point.

Everything I posted was factual. You, per usual, can't actually point anything out that isn't factual. You can't tell me where I'm wrong. Think about that, bub.

But let's keep it simple. I'll try and dumb it down enough so you can't understand.

Yes. In 1990, STP wasn't huge and most people didn't know who Weiland was. Agreed.

Would Axl Rose and GnR fall into that SAME category in 1985? Yes or No?

Would EVERY famous legendary rock singer fall into that SAME category before their band broke? Yes or no?

Did you know that at one point, nobody knew who Michael Jordan was? Or Lebron James? Or Jimi Hendrix? Did you know that in 2004 nobody knew how Obama was?

Starting to hit home for ya now? Starting to make sense? You are making a point that everybody agrees with, yet it has NO bearing on the actual topic. Yes, bub, Weiland was a nobody in 1990. Just like Axl was a nobody in 1985.

THE F*CKING POINT of the topic is would Slash/Duff/Izzy/Adler been able to be successful without Axl - starting in 1990. The answer is clearly yes. Because that core group was just as strong, if not stronger, than the overwhelming majority of other bands out there in the 90s that were extremely successful. case in point: Creed. Creed released an album in the 90s that went on to sell 20 million copies. So take the core group from GnR and throw in another Hall of Fame level singer..........how in the world would they not be popular?

Sometimes trying to explain things to you is painful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a load of bollocks typical Groghanism could n`t be arsed to respond seriously and No, GNR without Axl would be just another run off the mill, mediocre 80`s cock rock band which would have got lost in oblivion like the rest of them did. Trying to wade through your wall of horeshit is nauseating.

Edited by Ragnar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprised this thread even started a convo my threads are always random :D

So I think we've gotten Scott weiland, Bon jovi, I think someone said layne staley, bach, mike Patton, Andrew wood, chad Kroger.

In 1990 which of all the artists listed was actually a viable option. Meaning they realistically could have gotten this singer in 1990. Bach maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a load of bollocks typical Groghanism could n`t be arsed to respond seriously and No, GNR without Axl would be just another run off the mill, mediocre 80`s cock rock band which would have got lost in oblivion like the rest of them did. Trying to wade through your wall of horeshit is nauseating.

Why do you have to edit every post you make?

What was "bollocks" about it? For the love of God, can you just for once stick to the topic and respond to ACTUAL things that were said?

PLEASE tell me you now see how idiotic your "he was a nobody in 1990" statement was, and how it means absolutely nothing towards the topic. I'm praying that you can at least wrap your brain around that point. Yes?

You are feeling nauseated because you are getting destroyed with FACTS and you literally cannot respond/defend/argue against any of it. What you call "horse shit" is what people with triple digit IQs call "facts" and "common sense."

Only a complete moron would think that Slash/Duff/Izzy/Adler and Weiland - in the early 90s - wouldn't be hugely successful. Weiland became HUGE with a less talented band.

And, the group that you think would have gotten lost amongst the other bands, proved that you are really mistaken because they got together 15 years later and put out an album that did better than the one and only album Axl Rose put out under the GnR name!!!!! That really pisses you off, doesn't it!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do I have to edit every post I make ? maybe I want to ? have n`t you thought about it ? what " facts" and " common sense " am I being destroyed by you grumpy old man :lol: ? you `re gravely mistaken if you think you`re making sense or your opinions are facts .

What does Axl`s lack of output have to do with the actual topic ? it`s quite idiotic to pass your opinion about a hypothetical scenario as a fact. Scott was a nobody back then whether you like it or not. To use your phrasing, only a fucking moron would think GNR would be " hugely " successful without Axl. Now, do a favour and remove tampoon out of your ass champ.

Edited by Ragnar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprised this thread even started a convo my threads are always random :D

So I think we've gotten Scott weiland, Bon jovi, I think someone said layne staley, bach, mike Patton, Andrew wood, chad Kroger.

In 1990 which of all the artists listed was actually a viable option. Meaning they realistically could have gotten this singer in 1990. Bach maybe?

The core group of Izzy, Slash and Duff was so talented and so popular at the time, that they no doubt would have been a successful band with any of those guys you mentioned (except for Kroger).

They no doubt would have been popular even with an unknown singer. But throw in a singer that had the talent to become legendary in their own right? 2 plus 2 equals 4. STP ended up being huge, Skid Row hadn't even put out their second album yet. Andrew Wood was amazing. So throw in a killer singer with a killer band.......they no doubt would have been a huge band still.

Nobody can replace a voice like Axl Rose.

And Axl Rose has found out that he can't be as successful as he was with Izzy, Slash and Duff helping him out

So GnR without any of those guys is just a huge loss for the band and its fans.

But Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy are all extremely talented and would have been superstars even without GnR.

But none will ever be as successful without all the others on board.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprised this thread even started a convo my threads are always random :D

So I think we've gotten Scott weiland, Bon jovi, I think someone said layne staley, bach, mike Patton, Andrew wood, chad Kroger.

In 1990 which of all the artists listed was actually a viable option. Meaning they realistically could have gotten this singer in 1990. Bach maybe?

The core group of Izzy, Slash and Duff was so talented and so popular at the time, that they no doubt would have been a successful band with any of those guys you mentioned (except for Kroger).

They no doubt would have been popular even with an unknown singer. But throw in a singer that had the talent to become legendary in their own right? 2 plus 2 equals 4. STP ended up being huge, Skid Row hadn't even put out their second album yet. Andrew Wood was amazing. So throw in a killer singer with a killer band.......they no doubt would have been a huge band still.

Nobody can replace a voice like Axl Rose.

And Axl Rose has found out that he can't be as successful as he was with Izzy, Slash and Duff helping him out

So GnR without any of those guys is just a huge loss for the band and its fans.

But Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy are all extremely talented and would have been superstars even without GnR.

But none will ever be as successful without all the others on board.

Because Axl not having the same success in 2008 as he had in 1988 proves he couldn't have done anything without them.... joke topic

Edited by nightrain50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's part of the problem. They made a record without Adler and no one said shit. Izzy left and they continued the tour and made Spag Incident with Gilby? Slash brought in Snakepit as the new GNR album, no second guessing whether this was really the band it once was. Now we say I only want the original five reunion but in 91 I did not care Adler wasn't there at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprised this thread even started a convo my threads are always random :D

So I think we've gotten Scott weiland, Bon jovi, I think someone said layne staley, bach, mike Patton, Andrew wood, chad Kroger.

In 1990 which of all the artists listed was actually a viable option. Meaning they realistically could have gotten this singer in 1990. Bach maybe?

The core group of Izzy, Slash and Duff was so talented and so popular at the time, that they no doubt would have been a successful band with any of those guys you mentioned (except for Kroger).

They no doubt would have been popular even with an unknown singer. But throw in a singer that had the talent to become legendary in their own right? 2 plus 2 equals 4. STP ended up being huge, Skid Row hadn't even put out their second album yet. Andrew Wood was amazing. So throw in a killer singer with a killer band.......they no doubt would have been a huge band still.

Nobody can replace a voice like Axl Rose.

And Axl Rose has found out that he can't be as successful as he was with Izzy, Slash and Duff helping him out

So GnR without any of those guys is just a huge loss for the band and its fans.

But Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy are all extremely talented and would have been superstars even without GnR.

But none will ever be as successful without all the others on board.

Because Axl not having the same success in 2008 as he had in 1988 proves he couldn't have done anything without them.... joke topic

Everything we are doing is speculation. That's what happens on a forum for an artist who has put out one album in the last 23 years. It isn't a joke topic by any means of the imagination. We have nothing band related to actually talk about, so people have to make topics like this. Otherwise the forum would close down.

But to answer your point.

Sort of - yes. Slash has remained popular and relevant. He has outsold Axl, put out an album that faired better than Axl's only album, he has played with several super star acts, played the super bowl, had billboard hits, won a Grammy award.

All we can really go on is what actually happened.

We can just look at Slash's career.........and look at what Axl has accomplished since the classic line-up broke up.

In terms of the music world, one of those careers would be called a success and one would be called an epic failure.

But in terms of speculation, like I already said.

There really isn't any doubt that Axl would and could have been successful without the classic line-up........IF that was something that interested him. Unfortunately for us - the fans - he doesn't really care about success, GnR or his millions of fans.

The classic musician line-up - obviously they would have been successful. With Axl, they were the biggest band in the world. Fifteen years later with another singer - they were extremely successful. So if they were huge in 1988 and in 2006, why in the world would anybody say they wouldn't have been successful in the middle of those years, especially with a killer singer?

Great topic. What else do we have to talk about? DJ selfies with his wife and wondering how much control/power Fernando has with the band? The last album came out seven years ago, I suppose we can talk about WHEN a follow up will come and if it will feature music that was written a decade ago, or if GnR will do a third vegas residency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bach is the obvious answer, that guy could fucking sing, not lyrically or mystically but vocally I find him almost as dynamite as Axl, if he had the band that Axl had who knows, but Axl also drives people on to fit his vision so maybe it's nowhere near comparable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bach is the obvious answer, that guy could fucking sing, not lyrically or mystically but vocally I find him almost as dynamite as Axl, if he had the band that Axl had who knows, but Axl also drives people on to fit his vision so maybe it's nowhere near comparable.

Bach can sing his ass off, but sounds atrocious covering any guns tune, even in his prime, check youtube. He would be forced to sing all those songs if he replaced Axl in Guns. It would've been terrible. Now, velvet revolver is a different story, as long he doesn't have to sing Guns tunes.

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...