This is Guns N' Roses-here's why.

[Roky]

If Izzy says it's not GNR, then it's not GNR

Period

What about when Axl says it's GNR?

It matters ZERO

Edited February 13, 2010 by Roky

[dimitrisaxl]

What "GnR" is or isn't...will obviously be different for every person. Because it depends entirely on what the term "Guns n Roses" actually means to you. Is it the name of a band? Is it a particular sound? A music style? An attitude? A certain image? Everyone's free to argue with whatever definition they want...but at the end of the day, Axl is the one holding the name, and to him, GnR is the name for his art. It has been from the beginning. Anyone who is good at what they do, or wants to be, evolves. And Chinese Democracy is a product of the evolution of his art. Therefore, it is GnR. It's really a pointless argument. What the other guys did under that name hasn't been lost or erased, and never will be. They created that stage of GnR together, but they decided to move on from that. That time was GnR. This time is GnR. It's not the same, but art changes and evolves as a person does in order to survive. It would be wrong if after all these years it was still the same.

Great post.

[plonker88]

There is no definitve answer to this, it's all personal opinion and preference.

[Street_Of_Dreams]

I can't tell you how many people I've tried to turn on to CD that haven't given me the argument "that's not Guns N' Roses" and refused to even give it a chance. I'm betting that's the majority view. But it really doesn't hold water, here's why.

A band is analogous to a relationship in my estimation. The bonds run very deep. There has to be a pretty intense level of empathy, good communication and trust. So when a member has an issue with the direction the band is headed in, obviously they have the right to assess whether they want to continue. Ultimately, Axl did not fire Izzy, Slash, and Duff. They walked away, totally for their own reasons. So in my opinion, Axl is not Guns N; Roses. But clearly, he runs the franchise. Does it really matter who wrote what and who played what on the CD? No. Every guitar track is properly credited. It captures a moment. Simple as that. Songwriters and performers get royalties for their work. The touring band was hired to interpret the material for a live audience, When you are talking about material with as complex in it's arrangements as CD, it is more about compositions than songs per se. Axl is more of a conductor than a frontman in the traditional sense. If you go to see a symphony, doe you bitch that Beethoven didn't make the gig? Fuck no, you just go with it. peace.

Axl is a conductor! Haha thats rich. Why does no one have a problem with the direction the band is headed? Because they are all hired guns you fool. Think about it, are you gonna complain to your boss how the company is headed? If you do you wont have a job the next day.

Also, whats its like when members of the band havent written or recorded anything on the album? "This is Guns N' Roses" give me a fucking break

[dimitrisaxl]

If Izzy says it's not GNR, then it's not GNR

Period

What about when Axl says it's GNR?

It matters ZERO

That says a lot about your way of thinking.

[Vincent Vega]

Different people have different ideas of what GnR is. Personally, I don't call this lineup Guns N Roses, I usually call it New GnR or something along those lines. That doesn't mean I don't like this lineup.

1985-1996(ish) is GnR to me. If its not for you, that's cool. Just don't expect everyone to call this lineup Guns N Roses.

1985-1996 there were a lot line up changes you know... But you still call them GNR. Why not these days?

June 6th 1985 -1991 wasn't any lineup changes apart from Dizzy the keyboard player

Plus this band wrote and recorded AFD, Lies, Use Your Illusion 1 + 2

Axl may own the name but it's still not the same band

Personally I would of loved if Axl had of named the current version WAR or Rose like his original band

Actually, June 6th 1985-1990 there was a change. In June 1990, Dizzy was hired and Steven was fired; Matt was hired in mid June.

In November 1991, Izzy quit and Gilby was fired. In June 1994, Gilby had his contract terminated and Paul Tobias was hired.

In April 1995, Izzy rejoined Guns and worked with Duff on material for Guns' next album; Izzy claims he and Duff wrote ten songs in the space of a week. One of these '95 Izzy songs, "Down by the Ocean" will be on GN'R's next record, said Axl back in December.

He made it clear he had no interest in touring with Guns but was fine with writing and was still working with the band as of July 1995 (according to an interview with Slash done in late July)

In 1995, Slash quit and was re-hired as per the terms of the August 1995 contract re-negotiations, which took effect on December 31st 1995.

From 12/31/1995 to October 1996, Slash was a hired member of Guns on contract on a short term basis. He terminated his contract and quit offically October 31st 1996.

In January 1997, Robin Finck was hired to replace Slash at the suggestion of Matt, signing a two year contract which went into effect on August 1st, 1997.

In April 1997, Matt was either fired or quit depending on whose story you believe.

Chris Vrenna was hired to replace Matt in April, and claimed that Duff was still in the band and working with Axl when he joined. He only stayed in the band a few weeks as he didn't want to commit to what he saw would be a long-term recording process and was replaced not long after by Dave Abbruzzese, who also didn't last long, and at the same time, Pod joined the band and Dave and Pod were a duo. Finally in mid 1997, Josh Freese was hired and stayed with GN'R until 2000.

In mid August 1997, Duff quit the band--He says he quit two weeks before his daughter Grace was born (August 27th, 1997).

In November 1997, Izzy was completely out of the GN'R partnership--When he left in '91, he legally ensured that he would still get percentage of everything Guns made money wise from the day he left until 11/1997.

Edited February 13, 2010 by MetalForever

[Street_Of_Dreams]

If Izzy says it's not GNR, then it's not GNR

Period

What about when Axl says it's GNR?

It matters ZERO

That says a lot about your way of thinking.

Yes it does, it shows he is right

[dimitrisaxl]

If Izzy says it's not GNR, then it's not GNR

Period

What about when Axl says it's GNR?

It matters ZERO

That says a lot about your way of thinking.

Yes it does, it shows he is right

So we have two original members. Why is Izzy's opinion more valid than Axl's?

[plonker88]

People really shouldn't care about others opinions on this, it's what you think that counts. The only issue I have is those who come here and use it as a way to get a reaction out of other members, they need to grow up and get a life.

[Vincent Vega]

If you wan to be technical, "New Guns" has existed since September 1st 1992, when the band's new contract came into effect. The contract stipulated that Axl would legally gain control of the Guns N' Roses name if he were fired or left the band.

[Graeme]

Same old tired fucking argument, for me, it's Guns N Roses, for Roky it isn't, we should be able to hold these views without being insulted or talked down to which happens far too much around here.

[dario27]

I can't tell you how many people I've tried to turn on to CD that haven't given me the argument "that's not Guns N' Roses" and refused to even give it a chance. I'm betting that's the majority view. But it really doesn't hold water, here's why.

A band is analogous to a relationship in my estimation. The bonds run very deep. There has to be a pretty intense level of empathy, good communication and trust. So when a member has an issue with the direction the band is headed in, obviously they have the right to assess whether they want to continue. Ultimately, Axl did not fire Izzy, Slash, and Duff. They walked away, totally for their own reasons. So in my opinion, Axl is not Guns N; Roses. But clearly, he runs the franchise. Does it really matter who wrote what and who played what on the CD? No. Every guitar track is properly credited. It captures a moment. Simple as that. Songwriters and performers get royalties for their work. The touring band was hired to interpret the material for a live audience, When you are talking about material with as complex in it's arrangements as CD, it is more about compositions than songs per se. Axl is more of a conductor than a frontman in the traditional sense. If you go to see a symphony, doe you bitch that Beethoven didn't make the gig? Fuck no, you just go with it. peace.

what a weak argument....... you, me and 95% of the members in this forum love Guns for the legacy that was built in the past by former members, ChiDem's been out for 1 year and a half, and this is the first tour the've made to promote that album.... are you really going to say that all the fuzz and hype and fanatism that surrounds Guns is built around ChiDem???.... people are begging for UYI songs to be played in case you've missed.

now you mention the other members leaving Axl.. well i recall Axl having the name in his power way before they left, so they either deal with the band the way he wanted, or leave.. cuz either way Axl woul've "left the band" and taken the name with it..

Axl has every right to use the name to his own benneffit.. but the way you put it is the way it is... Axl and the rest of the member reduced to minority... when you say does it matter who wrote what and played what.. what do you mean exactly?.. can anybody sing Axls parts live and call it Guns N Roses, as long as they give him credit for writting it?... so in your own little world, any cover band can eb Guns as longs as they give credit to the original members. Being the old or new?

this is a band, is a great band, with excelent musicians... but it's not the GNR from Appetite, Lies, Illusions, nor ChiDem.. so again. if Axl wants to call them Guns N Roses then GREAT!, but it's not the same band that built legacy from previous records and is not the same one from "their" latest Album

[SunnyDRE]

I can accept Axl moving on with the band and keeping the name.

What I can't accept is him releasing that abortion of a record and placing the GNR stamp of approval on it.

Edited February 13, 2010 by SunnyDRE

[JungleCat]

Axl is more of a conductor than a frontman

Axl is a conductor! Haha thats rich. Why does no one have a problem with the direction the band is headed? Because they are all hired guns you fool. Think about it, are you gonna complain to your boss how the company is headed? If you do you wont have a job the next day.

Also, whats its like when members of the band havent written or recorded anything on the album? "This is Guns N' Roses" give me a fucking break

Axl's equally a conductor and a frontman and more importantly, he really IS Guns N' Roses. From the onset it was really his presence that defined the band. His voice, his performance, his ideals, vision, determination and hunger to make it all happen fueled their massive success. His integrity and stamina kept it all going while the others lagged, played and partied till they'd lost sight of what they'd really wanted, aspired to and attained, And when Axl was the last man standing he obviously had a choice to make, keep Guns going or fold. Anyone paying any attention to GN'R's rise from the early days to the "most dangerous band in the world" can see that Axl's choice was really an easy one, the only one he could make because from day one, it was already in the cards.

So, we have Guns N' Roses today. Hired guns? Yeah. Real, contributing, distinct band members? Yeah. Are they out of a job if they voice their opinions or complain? That depends, and here's where Guns is no different than any other entity in the real world. You get hired cuz your boss recognizes your talent and accomplishments, your potential within the organization and sees that your overall ideals are in line with what he's already created. You get to contribute, create and yes, even voice your opinions. If your opinions didn't count for shit you wouldn't be a part of the project and big picture in the first place! It's when you lose sight of the projects, overall goals and feel of the company that your position becomes precarious. And for sure when you become unstable or go wacko you're the next Adler or $la$h.

I don't know why the fuck people give Axl such a hard time. If you had equivalent brains and balls you'd be doin' the same thing in his position.

[Orsys]

So...are the Chicago Bulls not the Chicago Bulls anymore because they don't have Jordan or Rodman? Exactly.

You might not like the lineup and that's fine, but saying "it's not Guns N' Roses" when the album cover clearly says "GUNS N' ROSES - Chinese Democracy" is just outright ridiculous.

When I say it's not Guns N Roses, I mean that in a conceptual sense. Its not meant that literally it isn't GNR. Of course its GNR, that's the name they technically carry, but save for Axl, who are any of the other people? Just like the Bulls, who were a force in the 90's, then people retired and/or left for other teams, and the Bulls weren't really the "Bulls" anymore. In name yes, but all that magic was gone and it was never the same after that (and still isn't). Sometimes when you set the bar that high there's nowhere to go but down. Axl had the ability to change the name and literally go in another direction, but he didn't. What's in a name? What can be interpreted from a name? A LOT!

If he chose another name, I would be much, much more supportive of the entire band, but when I see that circus on stage and what's (not) happened since '94, it's a disgrace to the GNR legacy. A new name would've signaled a fresh start, but instead it appeared to everyone that he was trying to resurrect something so special with a bunch of hired musicians.

I'm really surprised that you went to a concert and still felt it was 'that circus on stage' and not a cohesive band able to support the GnR legacy. I came away more supportive of GnR than ever.

[Vincent Vega]

I've always felt like GNR has been an Axl Rose solo project since the late 90s. Musicians have come and gone. Music that was written by one member is re-recorded by a new one. Really it's just Axl Rose with a very talented backing band. I'm not trying to insult the guys in any way. Every member that has been a part of the band since '99 has been a very talented and capable musician. And they put on one hell of a show.

But Guns N' Roses was more than just one man. And I know that the majority on this forum disagree with my opinion and that's fine. This band is now called Guns N' Roses, but Guns N' Roses is really Axl, Slash, Izzy, Duff, Steve/Matt. What do you think people would have said back in the seventies if Paul McCartney started touring and releasing music as The Beatles?

I don't even know why I posted this. People believe what they want to believe and this argument has been beaten to death since '01.

Fuck.

See, there we go with the, well, one replacement (Matt) is ok, because he was sanctioned by Slash but no others are not. And I notice that you neglect to say Dizzy is a part of GN'R, even though he joined at the same time and played on the same amount of records with Slash that Matt did. But I'll assume that's because Dizzy wasn't liked by Slash and has stood by Axl.

So when Guns N' Roses consisted of Axl, Slash, Gilby, Duff, Matt, Dizzy, then it wasn't Guns N' Roses? So it wasn't GN'R for most of the Illusion tour?

Or how about when Guns N' Roses consisted of Axl, Slash, Paul Tobias, Duff, Matt, and Dizzy?

[GeorgeGlass]

I've always felt like GNR has been an Axl Rose solo project since the late 90s. Musicians have come and gone. Music that was written by one member is re-recorded by a new one. Really it's just Axl Rose with a very talented backing band. I'm not trying to insult the guys in any way. Every member that has been a part of the band since '99 has been a very talented and capable musician. And they put on one hell of a show.

But Guns N' Roses was more than just one man. And I know that the majority on this forum disagree with my opinion and that's fine. This band is now called Guns N' Roses, but Guns N' Roses is really Axl, Slash, Izzy, Duff, Steve/Matt. What do you think people would have said back in the seventies if Paul McCartney started touring and releasing music as The Beatles?

I don't even know why I posted this. People believe what they want to believe and this argument has been beaten to death since '01.

Fuck.

See, there we go with the, well, one replacement (Matt) is ok, because he was sanctioned by Slash but no others are not. And I notice that you neglect to say Dizzy is a part of GN'R, even though he joined at the same time and played on the same amount of records with Slash that Matt did. But I'll assume that's because Dizzy wasn't liked by Slash and has stood by Axl.

So when Guns N' Roses consisted of Axl, Slash, Gilby, Duff, Matt, Dizzy, then it wasn't Guns N' Roses? So it wasn't GN'R for most of the Illusion tour?

Or how about when Guns N' Roses consisted of Axl, Slash, Paul Tobias, Duff, Matt, and Dizzy?

When we realistically look at the core of the band, there is no doubt the frontman and lead guitarist are the most identifiable of the bunch - Plant and Page, Tyler and Perry, Bono and the Edge (even though I hate U2), etc, etc. The list goes on and on. That said, if Axl and Slash had recruited a new rhythm guitarist, new bassist and drummer in ~'96, this band would deserve and get way more credibility. Not to mention that 'Guns' was dormant for the better part of 7 years. That's why nobody thinks of UYI GNR as not GNR, the core and most identifiable duo remained in tact. For as much as we love Izzy, his loss wasn't really felt on that tour (although he is a GREAT song writer) as evidenced by the ridiculous amounts of people that packed arenas and stadiums. If Slash had quit in '91? I don't think we would have had that monster tour from 91-93 and GNR would've faded much faster. Post '93, you lose 80% of a band and is it really the 'band' anymore? At what point do you scrap the plans and go back to the drawing board? Axl hung on to the name for one reason - it was the only way he could retain any sort of identity at all, despite the lies he tells us on this board.

[plonker88]

People care about this way too much, it's just a band.

[meanmachine78]

I know this is a GNR board and other bands shouldn't matter, but for all those people who are saying this in NOT Guns N Roses? What are you views on Megadeth? Dave is the only founding member of that band, but he doesn't get anywhere near the shit that Axl gets, when essentially it's the same thing. It's just Axl gets a bad rep no matter what he does. Luckily he figured that out early on decided since he'll get in trouble either way, might as well do things his way and have fun. We live in a world where everything is Politically Correct and anyone who is offended by any stupid thing is going to cry and bitch and moan as loud as they can. Then all the bleeding hearts are going to jump on board and cry foul as well. The bottom line is, weather this is called Guns N' Roses, GNR (As Bumblefoot suggested to those who have a problem with Guns N ' Roses), Axl n' the Boys, or even Axl and the Axl Rose Band, the bottom line is the spirit, attitude, and most importantly the music is the same. To me, just as any Megadeth version with Dave Mustaine in it is Megadeth and just like any KISS version with Gene and Paul in it is KISS (I do have a tiny problem with Eric and Tommy wearing Peter and Ace's make-up, but that's a different issue on a different board), as long as Axl is in involved and staying true to Guns (meaning unless he comes out and says, this is my solo project) it will always be Guns N' Roses.

Thank you for your time. The End.

[bax]

Saying this is not the real Guns is like me saying to someone I know, 'you're not the real you because you didn't stay exactly the same since age whatever', it doesn't make any sense to me at all. The band is like a living thing and it has to change and evolve. The changes aren't even always necessarily conscious decisions, it's just how all art is. What the fuck's so hard to understand about that?

that's the whole argument in a nutshell. nice.

People care about this way too much, it's just a band.

so why do you have 2,000+ posts then? just like to see your own words in print? some people have no sense of irony. pathetic.

[bax]

When we realistically look at the core of the band, there is no doubt the frontman and lead guitarist are the most identifiable of the bunch - Plant and Page, Tyler and Perry, Bono and the Edge (even though I hate U2), etc, etc. The list goes on and on. That said, if Axl and Slash had recruited a new rhythm guitarist, new bassist and drummer in ~'96, this band would deserve and get way more credibility. Not to mention that 'Guns' was dormant for the better part of 7 years. That's why nobody thinks of UYI GNR as not GNR, the core and most identifiable duo remained in tact. For as much as we love Izzy, his loss wasn't really felt on that tour (although he is a GREAT song writer) as evidenced by the ridiculous amounts of people that packed arenas and stadiums. If Slash had quit in '91? I don't think we would have had that monster tour from 91-93 and GNR would've faded much faster. Post '93, you lose 80% of a band and is it really the 'band' anymore? At what point do you scrap the plans and go back to the drawing board? Axl hung on to the name for one reason - it was the only way he could retain any sort of identity at all, despite the lies he tells us on this board.

Thank you for expressing the sentiments I was trying to convey.

actually, you have the most convincing argument I've seen, so I'll break it down to you simply as possible. i would actually argue that Izzy was much more important than Slash as far as developing the band sound. Slash contributed great leads, no doubt. he is one of my favorite soloists of all time. but he's not much of a songwriter-exhibit a:Velvet Revolver. The chord progression and melody make the song-to have a good solid lead part, you have to have a good template to work with. See the Stones. they've had several lead players, but it's Mick's vocals and Keith riffs that define that sound for me. the original sound of the band officially died when izzy left. the band changed direction when Adler was replaced too. Sorum was basically a straight up hard rock/metal drummer. Adler had swing, maybe not as technical, but so what? now in an ideal world i would've loved to have the original guys continue. but once izzy left, the songwritng for the band changed a lot. one of Izzy 's songs, you could pull that off with a vocal an acoustic-not so for any of the later stuff. it was more about a complex, detailed arrangement. that's why i used the Beethoven analogy, because these are compositions, not songs in the old school sense. but it's all a part of the ever-evolving sound of the band. so just accept that ultimately izzy, slash and duff walked out. it was totally their option. what was Axl supposed to do? he had contractual obligations with the band, and his bandmates had ducked out. so he did the right thing. he moved on. clearly, he could have got some guys that were able to right songs in more of a blues-rock vein. but that would have been dishonest of him. to his credit, like it or not, Axl has always been pushing the envelope. no project by any former member holds a candle to CD. just an opinion there though. peace.

[Crowebar]

Not sure what to say. What was Axl supposed to do? He could've done things differently I suppose. Like calling it 'The Axl Rose Project.' I don't think it would've mattered much. He would've got slammed anyway. No matter which way he played his cards. I guess he could've said fuck it and retired. Sometimes I think the media/world MIGHT'VE gone easier on the guy if Slash had died in a car or plane crash years ago. Probably not though. Axl seems to be the 'Man They Love To Hate.' No matter what that dude does, he gets slammed. I say whatever and fuck it. It's still the best Rock and Roll show out there that I've ever seen and that's not about to change anytime soon from what I see and where I stand. Shove nickelcrack up your ass. They're not getting any of my money because they fucking suck. Just like all of the other wanna-be clone bands out there. I'll take Axl over that tripe any day of my life. Thanks. I feel much better now.

[riot]

I can't tell you how many people I've tried to turn on to CD that haven't given me the argument "that's not Guns N' Roses" and refused to even give it a chance. I'm betting that's the majority view. But it really doesn't hold water, here's why.

A band is analogous to a relationship in my estimation. The bonds run very deep. There has to be a pretty intense level of empathy, good communication and trust. So when a member has an issue with the direction the band is headed in, obviously they have the right to assess whether they want to continue. Ultimately, Axl did not fire Izzy, Slash, and Duff. They walked away, totally for their own reasons. So in my opinion, Axl is not Guns N; Roses. But clearly, he runs the franchise. Does it really matter who wrote what and who played what on the CD? No. Every guitar track is properly credited. It captures a moment. Simple as that. Songwriters and performers get royalties for their work. The touring band was hired to interpret the material for a live audience, When you are talking about material with as complex in it's arrangements as CD, it is more about compositions than songs per se. Axl is more of a conductor than a frontman in the traditional sense. If you go to see a symphony, doe you bitch that Beethoven didn't make the gig? Fuck no, you just go with it. peace.

Not really convincing.

When I listen to Axl's band covering GNR's classic songs or even the CD songs, the analogy that pops in my head is that a fake Picasso can look very similar to the original. But it's still a fake Picasso...

yeah and I could be waiting for a reunion and hesar slash fucked with every fucking solo lol! not that I would not enjoy a reunion, but I really enjoy the band lineup right now. what about this lineup :

axl

duff

izzy

ron

dj

frank

criss

dizzy

[Street_Of_Dreams]

Axl is more of a conductor than a frontman

Axl is a conductor! Haha thats rich. Why does no one have a problem with the direction the band is headed? Because they are all hired guns you fool. Think about it, are you gonna complain to your boss how the company is headed? If you do you wont have a job the next day.

Also, whats its like when members of the band havent written or recorded anything on the album? "This is Guns N' Roses" give me a fucking break

Axl's equally a conductor and a frontman and more importantly, he really IS Guns N' Roses. From the onset it was really his presence that defined the band. His voice, his performance, his ideals, vision, determination and hunger to make it all happen fueled their massive success. His integrity and stamina kept it all going while the others lagged, played and partied till they'd lost sight of what they'd really wanted, aspired to and attained, And when Axl was the last man standing he obviously had a choice to make, keep Guns going or fold. Anyone paying any attention to GN'R's rise from the early days to the "most dangerous band in the world" can see that Axl's choice was really an easy one, the only one he could make because from day one, it was already in the cards.

So, we have Guns N' Roses today. Hired guns? Yeah. Real, contributing, distinct band members? Yeah. Are they out of a job if they voice their opinions or complain? That depends, and here's where Guns is no different than any other entity in the real world. You get hired cuz your boss recognizes your talent and accomplishments, your potential within the organization and sees that your overall ideals are in line with what he's already created. You get to contribute, create and yes, even voice your opinions. If your opinions didn't count for shit you wouldn't be a part of the project and big picture in the first place! It's when you lose sight of the projects, overall goals and feel of the company that your position becomes precarious. And for sure when you become unstable or go wacko you're the next Adler or $la$h.

I don't know why the fuck people give Axl such a hard time. If you had equivalent brains and balls you'd be doin' the same thing in his position.

A band should be a collective group of guys with equal voice. Everything they do starts and ends with Axl.

[dimitrisaxl]

Axl is more of a conductor than a frontman

Axl is a conductor! Haha thats rich. Why does no one have a problem with the direction the band is headed? Because they are all hired guns you fool. Think about it, are you gonna complain to your boss how the company is headed? If you do you wont have a job the next day.

Also, whats its like when members of the band havent written or recorded anything on the album? "This is Guns N' Roses" give me a fucking break

Axl's equally a conductor and a frontman and more importantly, he really IS Guns N' Roses. From the onset it was really his presence that defined the band. His voice, his performance, his ideals, vision, determination and hunger to make it all happen fueled their massive success. His integrity and stamina kept it all going while the others lagged, played and partied till they'd lost sight of what they'd really wanted, aspired to and attained, And when Axl was the last man standing he obviously had a choice to make, keep Guns going or fold. Anyone paying any attention to GN'R's rise from the early days to the "most dangerous band in the world" can see that Axl's choice was really an easy one, the only one he could make because from day one, it was already in the cards.

So, we have Guns N' Roses today. Hired guns? Yeah. Real, contributing, distinct band members? Yeah. Are they out of a job if they voice their opinions or complain? That depends, and here's where Guns is no different than any other entity in the real world. You get hired cuz your boss recognizes your talent and accomplishments, your potential within the organization and sees that your overall ideals are in line with what he's already created. You get to contribute, create and yes, even voice your opinions. If your opinions didn't count for shit you wouldn't be a part of the project and big picture in the first place! It's when you lose sight of the projects, overall goals and feel of the company that your position becomes precarious. And for sure when you become unstable or go wacko you're the next Adler or $la$h.

I don't know why the fuck people give Axl such a hard time. If you had equivalent brains and balls you'd be doin' the same thing in his position.

A band should be a collective group of guys with equal voice. Everything they do starts and ends with Axl.

Yeah, Steven had equal voice with Axl back then!