Perception of GnR/Axl between 1993-1997?

[EvanG]

5 hours ago, AFGnR said:

I showed people pictures of Axl in 2006....and they didn't recognize who it was 'cause they hadn't seen him since 1993.

Well, he looked totally different with the botox and crazy hairdo.

[DieselDaisy]

11 hours ago, RONIN said:

I always find it amusing how the rock press in '91 refer to Axl as "the voice of a generation" and "the next Jim Morrison" or comparing Guns to the Stones and Pistols - yet that kind of talk begins to die out soon after Use Your Illusion releases. Afterwards, Axl seems to transition into some villainous character in a rock opera. A garish cartoon-like figure to be mocked and scorned by his peers. I wonder if it was Axl's unrepentant douche-baggery or GnR simply existing in the wrong era (the early 90's instead of the late 60's and 70's) which sets them up for such a massive downfall.

Comparing Axl to Morrison or Guns to the Sex Pistols (the antithesis of Illusions era Guns) seems almost absurd now. You'd be laughed out of a room for making an Axl/Morrison comparison prior to 2016 - and yet in 1991, the rock press saw that as a completely legitimate connection to make. There's quite a few press reviews of Illusions which elevate Rose and GnR to this level - so it may not have even been the Illusions which change this perception of Axl in the press but rather his increasing lack of credibility/legitimacy with his peers in the alternative scene. His unlikeability post Illusions also probably contributed significantly to this as well. 

 

There is actually a book about Guns from the author of No One Here Gets Out Alive which follows a similar train of thought,

Good book but his interpretation of the 'Bacchanalian v Dionysian' aspects of Guns I imagine drew a blank from most Gunners - Morrison and The Doors were on a higher intellectual plateau than Rose. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by DieselDaisy

[soon]

I think there were many angles and factors effecting perception of Guns and Axl at the time.  This is one, maybe?

Do people remember the "Grunge Speak" fiasco?  Culture was shifting.  Kill Rock Stars record label was pushing some significant units - need one say more?  There was a zine culture, as part of the hard rock landscape, that the major rock rags actually had to yield to, which discussed anti-capitalist and pro feminists ideas. Ideas that culture was being bought, sold and coming back as a replica instead of the authentic item was a major issue during early (anti) Globalization.  Culture Jamming and other tactics pushed back against this.  The reason anti-globalization protesters popularly targeted Star Bucks was because many coffee shops had until that point been independent, with their own character; and a place where poetry-readings, small scale local music, and lively political debate took place.  This underground movement and corporatism were finding themselves sharing space in the hard rock mainstream and it didnt work.  The major publications stumbled hard to try and absorb these disrupters into their profit machinery.  The "Grunge Speak" fiasco was where the NY Times called the Sub Pop office to ask what the cool kids were saying and the person who answered just lied to NYT and made up funny BS.  Which was then printed in the NYT!  And then based on what was written; fashion, print, music and other industries just pounced and actually production-lined that culture into existence.  This was culture jamming at its best at the beginning and also it back fired greatly. 

Even though the mini black block princesses in my world may not have been able to fully unpack and articulate how Guns was a corporate projection of Reaganomics.  Or a platform for misogyny.  They definitely knew that the music sounded like those things and that The Slits didnt.

So, this is just one tiny piece of the landscape I remember from 93-99ish.  I think that must have made it not only confusing, but less stable to make plans for Guns too, especially since young women and girls had Kathleen Hannah in one ear and Axl in the other.  Would this disrupter culture buy a ticket or storm the gates with scissors?  

 

 

This wiki has plenty of links to the NY Time and other articles about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grunge_speak

Edited November 1, 2017 by soon

[guitarpatch]

I was a teenager around that time. GNR had passed its popularity by that point. Here was the rock scene at that time.

Think about Metallica and their image/sound change with Load/Reload. Think about Nine Inch Nails, Manson, Korn, Rage. Then you had post grunge bands like Bush or other genres like No Doubt/Green Day. That was the rock scene in the mid/late 90’s. That’s where fans had moved to. Sonically those albums sound much different than anything that came out 3 years earlier let alone 5.  

To be on those bands level or the level where they were in 91, GNR needed to evolve its sound and approach. Did it need to be on the level of a complete tear down? I don’t think so. Could the Snakepit songs done quickly have an impact? Unfortunately not outside of the main fanbase. Would UYI III been accepted?  Def not. It was something that needed to be in between and tweaked. Possibly an image change to update with the times. Def wear more black and shorter hair... 

People were growing tired of grunge let alone GNR by that time. Cobain’s death was the end of that genre’s growth. They wanted something different, something even heavier. They wanted to be shocked and rocked. Rap verses and rock choruses and Ska/punk were part of it.  It was cool because you hadn’t heard it before yet it was familiar. They put it in a pop song structure. Manson being a freak surprised you, but the songs were anthemic etc.... 

GNR could of done a riff heavy album. Lean more on Duff and let Slash fill in with what he does. They just needed another a guy to fill in to modernize some of those riffs though. Axl was right in that regard if they wanted to dominate the late 90’s. Gilby wasn’t it. Izzy was going in another direction. Slash could do it, but it seems like that’s not the stuff he wanted to do at the moment. He wanted a more organic rock approach 

This is partly why they split. Seems like it was a philosophical disagreement with the direction of the band. Axl wanted to evolve the sound to be on the level and compete with those modern bands, Slash wanted to do an album that was in line with what they had done before but not as complex. He didn’t want to be in the studio for 2 years to find that sound

Both of them had valid points, but unfortunately were too far apart to find a way to do it.   

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by guitarpatch

[Its Tino]

Let's let's not forget the total disrespect to the paying concert goers who waited hours for him to hit the stage. If he did at all. 

That'll make a fabnase turn on ya

[EvanG]

1 hour ago, guitarpatch said:

People were growing tired of grunge let alone GNR by that time. Cobain’s death was the end of that genre’s growth. They wanted something different, something even heavier.

I don't necessarily agree with that. I've had this discussion before on here not so long ago. I don't even know what 'grunge' is... I don't think anyone does. It's a term some journalist gave to some bands from Seattle, but a lot of those bands sounded very different. But it wasn't that when Cobain died the popularity of those type of bands started to fade... for the rest of the 90s, even early 2000s, a lot of those bands remained popular. Silverchair, Bush, Matchbox 20, Everclear, all those bands that were labelled 'alternative' were very popular at the end of the 90s. It wasn't until 1999 or so when those nu-metal freaks got popular and a lot of people shifted to a more heavy sound.

[-W.A.R-]

I have no clue as i was born in 1992, but reviewing that time period it seems as if being cool became uncool and being uncool became cool. A move away from swaggering cock rock and more to nihilistic woe is me...then later 90's being an out-right freak show was in. (Axl, god bless his soul, tried to capitalize on both of these movements)

I still think Guns could have remained relevant like Metallica but the culture shift made them easily forgettable when there was nothing coming out. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by -W.A.R-

[ludurigan]

"I'm getting more and more confused about who's who in Guns N'Roses, and it's blowing my mind. There's Dizzy and Iggy and Lizzy and Tizzy and Gilby and Giddy... Shit man, onstage now there's a horn section, two chick back-up singers, two keyboard players, an airline pilot, a basketball coach, a coupla car mechanics..." - Roddy Bottum 1992

 

hey @RONIN that was hysterical fun

[Len Cnut]

Non existent.  The odd column inch in Kerrang talking about a split.

[Fashionista]

For a cover song with no video, Sympathy for the Devil reached 55 on the Billboard Hot 100 and 10 on the Mainstream Rock Chart. Don't think they were THAT unpopular. GN'R had the highest selling rock single of all of 1992 with NR two years prior as well. Aerosmith had their biggest success ever with Get a Grip in 1993 selling over 7 million copies. Van Halen's Balance sold 3 million. GN'R would've done similar numbers if they had released a good album in the 1994-1996 timeframe. Load sold 7 million despite the backlash by fans of Metallica.

[Fashionista]

5 hours ago, EvanG said:

Well, he looked totally different with the botox and crazy hairdo.

 

[killuridols]

16 hours ago, RONIN said:

Can anyone who was a fan around 1993-97 share some anecdotes about what the rock press, musicians, or your friends were saying about the band? What was the perception of GnR back then, especially in North America?

Spaghetti Incident was released without much fanfare and undersold by a huge margin. None of the singles charted high. The Estranged video in December '93 was DOA as was SIDHY in the summer of '94. Sympathy for the Devil tanked at the end of '94. Whatever they put out in '94 went nowhere with audiences - it's like people had moved on already.  Was it because Illusions and the band drama had exhausted people? GnR had not left audiences wanting more? Was it more of a case of an under-promoted cover album that had no bearing on the massive amount of Guns fans still dormant and waiting for an original release?

Could GnR have even put out an album that wouldn't have completely tanked back in the mid 90's? The fall from grace around '93 onward seems really sudden - how did they fall out of public favor that fast? Why didn't bands of their stature like Metallica or U2 get that kind of backlash? Those bands weathered the 90's just fine. On the other hand, it appears like the media and industry folk were expecting/hoping GnR would fall on their face with the next record.

MTV WASN'T PLAYING THEIR STUFF BY '95/'96?

I will respond as I was a teenager in the 90's and living in Argentina:

1) My friends never liked GN'R so I don't know what they were saying.... the same shit as always... that they were crazy psycho drugaddicts and that I should not listen to them

I think no one in the press was saying anything. They are as clueless as the fans. After 1994, GN'R totally faded away from the news.... Once in a while one mag would rehash some info or say a little gossip but that was it. Everybody knew there was a fallout between Axl and the rest of the band so it was reported everytime a member left: Sorum, Clarke, Slash, Duff. There wasn't really anything to write or talk about. You have to remember there was no Internet back then like there is now or social media where everybody shares pics or conversations or slips gossips like a gossip machine. Back then, if mags or tv or radio wouldn't mention something there was no way to know anything about anyone. So, nope. Total silence during those years.

2) I think TSI didn't cause any significant impact because everybody knew it was an album of covers, not original material and most of songs didnt have anything to do with GN'R sound so no one cared or liked it like the Illusions or AFD. Sympathy For The Devil, another cover no one cared about..... why? Because we were kids back then, most of us kids of 14, 15, 16 years old and we didn't care for listening to covers of bands that looked like our grandpas back then.... The Rolling Stones and all the bands in TSI were like huh? to us teenagers.

Besides the offer of modern music, bands of the era, groups that you could identify with because of age or whatever was wide..... It was very stupid of GN'R to think they could compete against Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots, Radiohead, etc with music from the 60's....

3) They fell from grace because they presented an album that disappointed everybody. A LAZY ASS ALBUM with music that had nothing to do with what the kids were listening at the moment, music that was not written by them and they fuckin' disappeared from the face of the earth. No more interviews, shows, pictures.... so that's what you get when you become lazy and go sleep thinking you can rest on your laurels when your audience mainly consist of TEENAGERS.

Metallica and U2 didn't sit on their lazy asses.... Metallica changed their looks, kept presenting new albums, new videos, shows... U2 did the same, for better or for worse, they kept working and didnt vanish.

4) Yes, MTV did play their videos but there were lots of new bands and new videos, so why would they play GN'R when GN'R wasn't active?

MTV is a media corporation, they don't do charity. GN'R are the only ones to blame for their falling from grace.

I don't think there's too much science behind why they failed..... It was all their fucking fault..... they broke up, stopped working, continued fighting for decades. In the meantime other bands formed, released music and gained fans. No one was going to sit and wait for GN'R, especially when you are so young as the fans that GN'R left in the dark were when they disappeared.

 

[EvanG]

1 minute ago, Fashionista said:

 

I'm not sure if I would have recognised him in 2006 if I walked past him on the street.

[Fashionista]

3 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I'm not sure if I would have recognised him in 2006 if I walked past him on the street.

Axl doesn't really have distinctive features. That's how he was able to avoid being photographed for the most part for almost a decade. He doesn't stand out in a crowd.

[papashaun]

My 2 Cents Worth: OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND

I was 12 when The Spaghetti Incident was released, and I was aware that the single/video "Since I don't Have You" was a cover song, but at 12 years old, I didn't realize the whole album was nothing but cover songs....some younger fans could have been like me/confused by some of the songs on the album itself, and just wonder why it was even released. Then you have to remember, you basically didn't see or hear anything out of the band after that......

To a younger fan base in that particular MTV generation, if you didn't have a video playing on regular rotation, most forgot about you. Just the fact nothing was being released, or nothing was seen of the band starting around '94 led to most of the downfall....nobody is thinking about you when you are no where around....

Seriously, the only 3 things I can remember related to the band between the release of the Spaghetti Incident and 1999 when Oh My God was released, was 1. Hearing Sympathy For the Devil at the end of Interview With the Vampire.  2. Seeing Slash on Mad TV   3. A Kurt Loader news report saying it was reported that Slash was fired from the band. Didn't really hear anything else until Axl calling in to Total Request Live/taking to Carson Daily about putting together his "new" band/seeing the Welcome to the Jungle "remix" video so to speak to promote the Live Era album around '99.

So basically, when you're not in the news/the know.....people tend to forget about you, especially the younger crowd. 

[EvanG]

8 minutes ago, Fashionista said:

Axl doesn't really have distinctive features. That's how he was able to avoid being photographed for the most part for almost a decade. He doesn't stand out in a crowd.

I thought that was because he was hiding in his Hollywood mansion and only came out at night?

[Fashionista]

28 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I thought that was because he was hiding in his Hollywood mansion and only came out at night?

No, he came out during the day, he has said he just avoided places where he knew the papparazzi would be.

[MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle]

11 hours ago, Sydney Fan said:

my recollections are by 94 it was over. By 94 a mix of bands were making it big mainly either indie acts such as evermore, stp, hole, rage against the machine, presidents of the united states and pantera.even nirvana were on there way out and pearl jam was still flying the grunge flag. This carried into 95 until 96 when Britpop completely exploded.

nu metal started from 97 to 2000. If guns had released an album by 96 I don't know if any fan would have cared. Even Metallica were losing their hardcore fans when load and reload were being released between 94 to 96.  the golden years of bands such as fnm, guns, Metallica even red hot chili peppers was between 91 to 93.

Yeah, I remember GNR being over by 93 even.  And you're right - after that, there was a real mix of not only bands, but genres.  I agree with you, I don't think it would have made a difference had GNR released an album in 96.  Music was already evolving to a stage where there wasn't going to be a dominant rock force anymore.

I'm not even going to attempt to explain why GNR fell out of favour because I honestly don't have a clue.  All I remember is that after the mid 90s rock itself began its steady decline as music began to diversify in a way it hadn't before.  

You look back at the charts over those years and you get a mixed bag of genres with an emphasis on rap, pop and dance/electronic music (think Ministry of Sound).  

But here's something that struck me while I was quickly looking over old charts: Back in 96, when GNR were getting nowhere with the now infamous jam sessions and Axl was about to lose Slash, you know what future smash hit song was being recorded?  Hanson's Mmmbop.  Eight months after Slash walked, Hanson were the biggest band on the planet - that song went to no.1 in 27 countries.  The millennials here will not have clue who that band is, but actually, now that I think about it, those boys were the last band after GNR, to attract a genuine frenzy of global recognition and dominance, yet their rock sound couldn't have been further removed from the GNR sound.  And then they too, quickly dropped off the radar (worth noting though, in the 15 years it took Axl to produce CD, Hanson released 5 albums, 3 on their own label).

Music diversified and music tastes changed.  GNR were probably never meant to go on in their original form; they were one of a kind. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle

[Its Tino]

Plus there were no smartphones, camera phones etc. All my music news in the early 90s was from Kurt loader and Serena autchell or whatever in those 5 minute MTV news updates with the peace sells bass line intro. 

[Fashionista]

I don't think the music was an issue, it was Axl's antics on the UYI tour, combined with the whole "anti-rockstar" movement that made GN'R seem like this dated thing. 

Rock bands in general who respected their fans - like The Rolling Stones, Van Halen, Metallica, or Aerosmith - were still massive even at the height of the Grunge period. The difference is those bands weren't riddled with drama, riots, and late shows. Axl's antics turned off everyone. He became the poster child for the worst excess of rockstardom. The Stones, Van Halen, Metallica, and Aerosmith all issued multi-platinum selling albums between 1994 and 1997. So, if the

GN'R's failure to change their image even slightly, as well, I believe also cost them. Look at the inner booklet of TSI and look how over the top GN'R's image was compared to the alternative bands of the era or even the older rock bands like Van Halen and Metallica. GN'R still pretty much looked like they did in 1990 when the scene had radically changed in just two years.
 

[Fashionista]

3 hours ago, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

Yeah, I remember GNR being over by 93 even.  And you're right - after that, there was a real mix of not only bands, but genres.  I agree with you, I don't think it would have made a difference had GNR released an album in 96.  Music was already evolving to a stage where there wasn't going to be a dominant rock force anymore.

I'm not even going to attempt to explain why GNR fell out of favour because I honestly don't have a clue.  All I remember is that after the mid 90s rock itself began its steady decline as music began to diversify in a way it hadn't before.  

You look back at the charts over those years and you get a mixed bag of genres with an emphasis on rap, pop and dance/electronic music (think Ministry of Sound).  

But here's something that struck me while I was quickly looking over old charts: Back in 96, when GNR were getting nowhere with the now infamous jam sessions and Axl was about to lose Slash, you know what future smash hit song was being recorded?  Hanson's Mmmbop.  Eight months after Slash walked, Hanson were the biggest band on the planet - that song went to no.1 in 27 countries.  The millennials here will not have clue who that band is, but actually, now that I think about it, those boys were the last band after GNR, to attract a genuine frenzy of global recognition and dominance, yet their rock sound couldn't have been further removed from the GNR sound.  And then they too, quickly dropped off the radar (worth noting though, in the 15 years it took Axl to produce CD, Hanson released 5 albums, 3 on their own label).

Music diversified and music tastes changed.  GNR were probably never meant to go on in their original form; they were one of a kind. 

Here's the thing though. If rock had begun its steady decline after the mid 90s, explain why Load did as well as the UYI albums in the States even though the fans hated it. Explain why bands like Korn, Tool, Papa Roach, Rage Against the Machine, System of a Down, Green Day, Marilyn Manson Limp Bizkit, etc did so well and captured a big chunk of the teenage/young adult audience in the States in the late 90s/early 00s. Even as late as 2004 you had albums like American Idiot doing MASSIVE sales. American Idiot sold 14 million copies worldwide, and went 6x Platinum here in the States alone. Look at how big Evanescence was in 2003-2005.

I don't think it has much to do with rock music declining more than Axl turning people off because he appeared not only more and more egocentric, but also more and more bizarre. This is a guy who was acting like a snob, using cigarette holders, wearing $500 sneakers,  wearing fur coats and hanging out with supermodels and going to fashion shows in a time where the musicians who captured the public's imagination were wearing ripped jeans, cheap t-shirts and flannel shirts. Axl was out of touch. He was living and embracing this jetset, superstar lifestyle in a time when rockers were downsizing and trying to look humble.

What disaffected teenager is going to relate to some guy wearing fur and hobnobbing with the elite? People like Eddie Vedder and Kurt Cobain had simply become more REAL than Axl...And they also came with a lot less baggage. You didn't risk getting hurt in a riot going to a Nirvana or AIC show. You didn't risk waiting three hours for Eddie Vedder to show up. 

When Axl came on the scene, his scrappy screwed up personality  was refreshing. He spoke to a forgotten generation of kids and to disaffected teens everywhere. But, by 1993, those teens had become young adults. They had grown up and matured. Axl didn't mature  with his audience, and his nonsense got old quick. There's no excuse in the world to make your fans wait hours for you. There's no excuse to stop shows for 10-20 minutes a time to rant about stuff no one in the audience really cares about. He was still acting the part of this disaffected punk...While wearing Versacci suits and making the most expensive videos of all time. He was going on and on about HIS past life regression stuff in a time where Kurt Cobain was talking about real shit, like politics, feminism and such. Axl started off as a really cool down to Earth guy, but became increasingly more "me, me, me."

I mean, go look at the 1992 VMAs. You have Nirvana and Pearl Jam playing raw, ragged, stripped down angry sets and are dressed like how the kids on the street were dressing...Axl is performing with Elton John and a professional orchestra and is dressed like some kind of 18th century aristocrat. The pomposity and grandiosity and pretentiousness of his aspirations turned off a lot of people, too, besides all the drama.

His act just got old. The people who were teens in 1988 were tired of it, and the new teenagers in 1993 wanted something with less drama.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Fashionista

[appetite4illusions]

3 hours ago, Fashionista said:

No, he came out during the day, he has said he just avoided places where he knew the papparazzi would be.

 

Look at how casual and almost flattering he is dressed in those '90s pics. 

It's such a polar opposite of the hip Versace style or the trailblazing rock fashion he proudly immersed himself in at the height of the band's heyeday. 

I don't even think this is an attempt at "fashion," at all. Forget how being dressed down and grungy was the norm in those times. It's so casual it's almost like he's resigned himself to sweat-pants. You can see a quite a bit of depression in that. He's not putting on airs at all. He's almost resigned himself to his role as the comfortable hermit. 

 

[Fashionista]

9 minutes ago, appetite4illusions said:

Look at how casual and almost flattering he is dressed in those '90s pics. 

It's such a polar opposite of the hip Versace style or the trailblazing rock fashion he proudly immersed himself in at the height of the band's heyeday. 

I don't even think this is an attempt at "fashion," at all. Forget how being dressed down and grungy was the norm in those times. It's so casual it's almost like he's resigned himself to sweat-pants. You can see a quite a bit of depression in that. He's not putting on airs at all. He's almost resigned himself to his role as the comfortable hermit. 

 

A couple of others from the same period of time:

If he had adopted this kind of image in say 1992 or so, I think GN'R would've fared better with the kids. It was more realistic than the Versacci suits and biker shorts and fur coats and things. And I don't think he was trying to ape grunge, as you say, he was probably resigned to this sort of hermit role. He probably felt a deep sense of resignation and grief. We'll never know the inside portrait but I have to believe that the mid 90s were probably the worst time of Axl's life emotionally. Now, I feel his tragedies were of his own making in most cases, but even still, he was probably deeply depressed and stopped giving a crap about dressing snappy.

You can kind of see a sadness or emptiness in his eyes in all these pictures. A thousand yard sort of stare. He's looking into the camera but he just isn't there. 

I know when Moby met him in 1997 he said Axl had a long beard he didn't bother grooming and that Axl came off "timid", like a beaten dog, broken. I know that his publicist said that when Kurt Cobain killed himself, she had to speak with Axl on the phone for several hours to calm him down and she was afraid he would do something to hurt himself. That's the only two pictures we have of Axl's mindset in the mid 90s...And they aren't pretty.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Fashionista

[MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle]

13 minutes ago, Fashionista said:

Here's the thing though. If rock had begun its steady decline after the mid 90s, explain why Load did as well as the UYI albums in the States even though the fans hated it. Explain why bands like Korn, Tool, Papa Roach, Rage Against the Machine, System of a Down, Green Day, Marilyn Manson Limp Bizkit, etc did so well and captured a big chunk of the teenage/young adult audience in the States in the late 90s/early 00s. Even as late as 2004 you had albums like American Idiot doing MASSIVE sales. American Idiot sold 14 million copies worldwide, and went 6x Platinum here in the States alone. Look at how big Evanescence was in 2003-2005.

I don't think it has much to do with rock music declining more than Axl turning people off because he appeared not only more and more egocentric, but also more and more bizarre. This is a guy who was acting like a snob, using cigarette holders, wearing $500 sneakers,  wearing fur coats and hanging out with supermodels and going to fashion shows in a time where the musicians who captured the public's imagination were wearing ripped jeans, cheap t-shirts and flannel shirts. Axl was out of touch. He was living and embracing this jetset, superstar lifestyle in a time when rockers were downsizing and trying to look humble.

What disaffected teenager is going to relate to some guy wearing fur and hobnobbing with the elite? People like Eddie Vedder and Kurt Cobain had simply become more REAL than Axl...And they also came with a lot less baggage. You didn't risk getting hurt in a riot going to a Nirvana or AIC show. You didn't risk waiting three hours for Eddie Vedder to show up. 

When Axl came on the scene, his scrappy screwed up personality  was refreshing. He spoke to a forgotten generation of kids and to disaffected teens everywhere. But, by 1993, those teens had become young adults. They had grown up and matured. Axl didn't mature  with his audience, and his nonsense got old quick. There's no excuse in the world to make your fans wait hours for you. There's no excuse to stop shows for 10-20 minutes a time to rant about stuff no one in the audience really cares about. He was still acting the part of this disaffected punk...While wearing Versacci suits and making the most expensive videos of all time. He was going on and on about HIS past life regression stuff in a time where Kurt Cobain was talking about real shit, like politics, feminism and such. Axl started off as a really cool down to Earth guy, but became increasingly more "me, me, me."

I mean, go look at the 1992 VMAs. You have Nirvana and Pearl Jam playing raw, ragged, stripped down angry sets and are dressed like how the kids on the street were dressing...Axl is performing with Elton John and a professional orchestra and is dressed like some kind of 18th century aristocrat. The pomposity and grandiosity and pretentiousness of his aspirations turned off a lot of people, too, besides all the drama.

His act just got old. The people who were teens in 1988 were tired of it, and the new teenagers in 1993 wanted something with less drama.

Yeah, I don't disagree with any of what you've said, particularly about Axl's pretentiousness being at odds with the cultural shift of the time (he'd love to have been an 18th aristocrat! lol).  My point was the status of rock was declining in terms of it no longer being a dominant genre in the music industry once you start getting past 96/97 - it just wasn't anymore and hasn't been ever since. 

Sure, later on you had your nu-metal and your emo (anyone remember My Chemical Romance?) and Fall Out Boy and what not, but they weren't dominating the industry and rock was becoming increasingly niche.  So Guns were up against that as well as the problems they created for themselves - as per usual with GNR, it's never just one factor, it's a combination of factors.

[AxlRoseCDII]

14 minutes ago, Fashionista said:

A couple of others from the same period of time:

If he had adopted this kind of image in say 1992 or so, I think GN'R would've fared better with the kids. It was more realistic than the Versacci suits and biker shorts and fur coats and things. And I don't think he was trying to ape grunge, as you say, he was probably resigned to this sort of hermit role. He probably felt a deep sense of resignation and grief. We'll never know the inside portrait but I have to believe that the mid 90s were probably the worst time of Axl's life emotionally. Now, I feel his tragedies were of his own making in most cases, but even still, he was probably deeply depressed and stopped giving a crap about dressing snappy.

You can kind of see a sadness or emptiness in his eyes in all these pictures. A thousand yard sort of stare. He's looking into the camera but he just isn't there. 

I know when Moby met him in 1997 he said Axl had a long beard he didn't bother grooming and that Axl came off "timid", like a beaten dog, broken. I know that his publicist said that when Kurt Cobain killed himself, she had to speak with Axl on the phone for several hours to calm him down and she was afraid he would do something to hurt himself. That's the only two pictures we have of Axl's mindset in the mid 90s...And they aren't pretty.

Really well written post. As much as he protested “the old band” during the mid 90’s to as late as 2012 I personally think deep down Slash, Duff and to a lesser extent Izzy leaving took a toll on him in ways hard to understand unless you’ve suffered from serious loss. He would never admit it during the time period but Slash and Duff were his musical muses and his best friends. It leaves a mark on a human to lose your best friends- yes he did push them away but it all ties in to possible self destructive tendencies and other mental illness that pushes close ones away. I think when Slash and Duff officially splitted with him it broke him. To me this is why CD is so beautiful to me...Axl tried so hard to write from his soul an album he can match with the works of his lost best friends. You can feel the raw emotion in that album. I also feel like this is why he tried to fill so many people with his record company, his entourage, his own band- possibly to match losing his best friends and fill that hole.

While the reunion tour isn’t perfect and has its faults it always makes me happy to see Axl in a better mindset and cracking jokes with Slash and Duff backstage.