Snowmass Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 The Crue recently announced that it's over after the farewell tour this year (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/motley-crue-promise-to-never-reunite-after-next-tour-20140128). When will Axl pull the plug on the Guns name? Also- with all the shots that they took at bands like Guns (only one original member left...still touring under the name) will Axl now be pissed at DJ and fire him since DJ is friends/acquantances with Nikki & Tommy after what was said at the Crue press conference and last year in an interview?"It's not one or two (original) band members up there dragging the band name around...I'd be sad if we were playing half full theatres and only 2 band members were in the band...sad is not taking your final bows together as 4 brothers in Los Angeles"."We always had a vision of going out with a big fucking bang and not playing county fairs and clubs with one or two original band members". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR DOOM Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 No mention of playing bowling alleys with one or two original band members...nope, GNR continues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wfuckinga Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 The shots they took were at KISS That's why they keep saying "When we say Farewell Tour, we mean it. That's the end. We're not going to jeep coming back" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoking Baby Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Axl could and should retire GNR as a live act, and keep the name alive by releasing pieces of his vault every year. He could work with a revolving door of musicians, have special guests and maybe do a concert here and there, like full albums in chronological order, sets created by fans online and stuff like that. He could keep doing music for the rest of his life, his fanbase is so loyal he would never lose a dime, specially if he'd get rid of a record label. I'd actually respect Axl if he did that.Instead we have nostalgia tours with musicians no one gives a fuck about. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowmass Posted January 29, 2014 Author Share Posted January 29, 2014 The shots they took were at KISSThat's why they keep saying "When we say Farewell Tour, we mean it. That's the end. We're not going to jeep coming back"Kiss yes....and many other bands like Guns, Warrant, Skid, LA Guns etc..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR DOOM Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Axl could and should retire GNR as a live act, and keep the name alive by releasing pieces of his vault every year. He could work with a revolving door of musicians, have special guests and maybe do a concert here and there, like full albums in chronological order, sets created by fans online and stuff like that. He could keep doing music for the rest of his life, his fanbase is so loyal he would never lose a dime, specially if he'd get rid of a record label. I'd actually respect Axl if he did that.Instead we have nostalgia tours with musicians no one gives a fuck about.wfuckinga cares about DJ Ashba, and he isn't nobody-he is somebody (not Izzy Stradlin) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash Diet Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 DefinitelyAround 2018 i supposehe will be old and fat enough to cam't sing in any way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saber_ Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbo Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 It would be the most ideal thing Axl could do at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvH Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) Lol taking shots at Kiss when you co-headline the same tour. PR Bullshit, as Nikki and Vince know well to handle. The thing is, nobody in Mötley is concerned with the band since Gen Swine so of course they can call it a day. Considering how the last real musician in the band is a dying man, the other 3 are nothing more than bloated businessmen. Edited January 29, 2014 by EvH 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trqster Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 If Axl was to do that it'd bring him immense respect from the fans and media. He could just 'rebrand' the band's name to something like AXL or W.A.R. He could still play all the Gn'R hits and leave a door open for a true Gn'R reunion one day… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicguns4life Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Yes, even though it should have happened in 2006. If the original band isn't coming back, and the new band has no interest in putting out new material, Guns N Roses doesn't really need to be a band anymore.I agree though that if they don't retire, 2018 sounds about right as to how much longer it can go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teroz Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Firstly I call BS on Mötley, they will surely tour Europe and Japan because of huge demand... And then do a leg in the US as they have to end it where they started etc...Secondly I think that Axl will not take any guidance fröm Mötley nor should he. He should not retire the name, he has earned it. But he should retire DJ Ca$sbah and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Black Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 If Axl was to do that it'd bring him immense respect from the fans and media. He could just 'rebrand' the band's name to something like AXL or W.A.R. He could still play all the Gn'R hits and leave a door open for a true Gn'R reunion one day… This, I would respect him immensely. But however it's all about the dollars, and not artistic integrity.To quote Axl: "giving up the name would've been financial suicide". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerage5 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 The shots they took were at KISSThat's why they keep saying "When we say Farewell Tour, we mean it. That's the end. We're not going to jeep coming back"Of course they won't Jeep coming back - Dodge is the sponsor for the tour. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowmass Posted January 29, 2014 Author Share Posted January 29, 2014 The shots they took were at KISSThat's why they keep saying "When we say Farewell Tour, we mean it. That's the end. We're not going to jeep coming back"Of course they won't Jeep coming back - Dodge is the sponsor for the tour.LOL. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wfuckinga Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 The shots they took were at KISSThat's why they keep saying "When we say Farewell Tour, we mean it. That's the end. We're not going to jeep coming back"Of course they won't Jeep coming back - Dodge is the sponsor for the tour.I made a typo on my phone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknroll41 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I honestly don't Axl to make a big "this is our farewell tour" stink out of it. That's just begging for cash. If I were him I'd just quietly disappear like he did when the old band ended in 1993. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowmass Posted January 29, 2014 Author Share Posted January 29, 2014 I honestly don't Axl to make a big "this is our farewell tour" stink out of it. That's just begging for cash. If I were him I'd just quietly disappear like he did when the old band ended in 1993.Which is what will most likely happen....although TB may have other plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IncitingChaos Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I know many consider this Guns to be Axl's solo project but I'd like to see him release albums under his name. Maybe he wouldn't hold everything to the "Guns" standard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicguns4life Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I know many consider this Guns to be Axl's solo project but I'd like to see him release albums under his name. Maybe he wouldn't hold everything to the "Guns" standardThat would amazing. Although at this point, it also seems like such a wasted opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foghat43 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) If Axl was to do that it'd bring him immense respect from the fans and media. He could just 'rebrand' the band's name to something like AXL or W.A.R. He could still play all the Gn'R hits and leave a door open for a true Gn'R reunion one day… This, I would respect him immensely. But however it's all about the dollars, and not artistic integrity.To quote Axl: "giving up the name would've been financial suicide".Sounds like an admission from Axl that he knows the music/band don't stand and couldn't make it on their own merits alone...they needed to milk the GnR brand name for all its worth to have any success at all. But didn't Robert Plant, Roger Waters, Clapton, Slash, and many others move on and have successful careers just using their own name/music rather than just riding the legacy of their former bands? Not saying that Axl is in the same league as Plant or Waters...but just saying let the music do the talking instead of relying on the GnR brand... Edited January 29, 2014 by foghat43 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR DOOM Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Not to be a dick but Roger Waters didn't exactly have a successful solo career, his 80's albums and tours were poorly received/didn't sell so good.It's only in the 2000s that he has enjoyed a renaissance concert wise, coincidentally focusing more on the Floyd stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foghat43 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Not to be a dick but Roger Waters didn't exactly have a successful solo career, his 80's albums and tours were poorly received/didn't sell so good.It's only in the 2000s that he has enjoyed a renaissance concert wise, coincidentally focusing more on the Floyd stuff.Fair enough...remove Waters from the list...just replace him with Ozzy, Dio, Don Henley, etc....these guys (along with those formerly mentioned other than Waters perhaps) were able to move on and have success. Ozzy may be the best example...lots of folks became Ozzy fans in the later years without even realizing that he was a former member of Sabbath. They dug Ozzy for Ozzy (or Randy Rhoads) or because they had heard Crazy Train (Ozzy's solo work)...not because he was riding the Sabbath legacy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 It is about the only decent thing now. Face facts guys, gnr are over and if you are really honest with yourself you will accept the fact that they were over the day Slash resigned. The decent thing would be to fold the band and release a vaults album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts