Should Slash and Duff have fired Axl?

[Vincent Vega]

Should Slash, Duff and/or Izzy/Matt have fired Axl sometime between 1990-1996?

Would the band have been better off without him post AFD?

Edited December 20, 2010 by Indigo Child

[Lose Your Illusions]

Should Slash, Duff and/or Izzy/Matt have fired Axl sometime between 1990-1996?

Would the band have been better off without him post AFD?

irreplaceable (ˌɪrɪˈpleɪsəb ə l)

— adj

not able to be replaced

Do not get me wrong- I do not believe Axl is GNR, neither does Axl himself. BUT he is irreplaceable when it comes to GNR. Need proof? that thing they call Velvet Revolver. Dont tell me that isnt just GNR (or trying their best to be GNR) without Axl. I dont even think it is necessary to state the things Axl brings to the table to this day in GNR.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Lose Your Illusions

[level up]

I don't think it would have been the end of the world. Axl has a unique voice but back then a lot of people had identifiable voices. Tom Kiefer, Dave Pirner for example. It really was a waste of time waiting for Axl after the Illusions. If Slash and Duff snatched up Layne Staley or another singer of tremendous caliber then I think there could have been something even better than Guns N' Roses created. Look at what Layne Staley did with Mad Season, great songwriter. Imagine Slash and Duff with Scott Weiland in all in their prime. That could have been something.

[Vincent Vega]

Should Slash, Duff and/or Izzy/Matt have fired Axl sometime between 1990-1996?

Would the band have been better off without him post AFD?

irreplaceable (ˌɪrɪˈpleɪsəb ə l)

— adj

not able to be replaced

Do not get me wrong- I do not believe Axl is GNR, neither does Axl himself. BUT he is irreplaceable when it comes to GNR. Need proof? that thing they call Velvet Revolver. Dont tell me that isnt just GNR (or trying their best to be GNR) without Axl. I dont even think it is necessary to state the things Axl brings to the table to this day in GNR.

I do not believe Axl is GNR, neither does Axl himself.

I respect the fact that you realize that the real GnR was the sum of the parts but your kidding about Axl right??

Every one of the guys who have been in the new band have described it as a band, a mutual collaboration. Robin spoke quite freely about his tenure in Guns when he left in '99; Josh Freese as well as Chris Vrenna, Youth, Moby and many other people who've worked with Axl since 1997 have all described it the same way, that each member contributes equally and apparently Axl WANTS it that way.

[Vincent Vega]

Should Slash, Duff and/or Izzy/Matt have fired Axl sometime between 1990-1996?

Would the band have been better off without him post AFD?

irreplaceable (ˌɪrɪˈpleɪsəb ə l)

— adj

not able to be replaced

Do not get me wrong- I do not believe Axl is GNR, neither does Axl himself. BUT he is irreplaceable when it comes to GNR. Need proof? that thing they call Velvet Revolver. Dont tell me that isnt just GNR (or trying their best to be GNR) without Axl. I dont even think it is necessary to state the things Axl brings to the table to this day in GNR.

I do not believe Axl is GNR, neither does Axl himself.

I respect the fact that you realize that the real GnR was the sum of the parts but your kidding about Axl right??

Every one of the guys who have been in the new band have described it as a band, a mutual collaboration. Robin spoke quite freely about his tenure in Guns when he left in '99; Josh Freese as well as Chris Vrenna, Youth, Moby and many other people who've worked with Axl since 1997 have all described it the same way, that each member contributes equally and apparently Axl WANTS it that way.

And yet they are all still salaried employees of Axl's who are required to sign contracts and can be fired on a whim...does not sound very equal or like a rreal band ot me...............

Then the Stones aren't a real band. Ron Wood was on salary until 1993 even though he joined the band in 1975. Darryl Jones has been their exclusive bassist since 1994 yet is still just on salary.

Hell, in 1991-1993, Gilby, Matt and Dizzy were just members on salary. That's half the band. Was it not a real band then?

The legal shit is just that--legal shit. What matters is the actual band interaction and from all reports it seems to be very band-like.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Indigo Child

[dalsh327]

I think it would've been interesting if they didn't sign the rights over and the band decided to end it instead.

But the band never would've been able to find someone to replace Axl...wasn't that the dilemma they ran into when they did kick him out of GNR early on?

[MB.]

irreplaceable (ˌɪrɪˈpleɪsəb ə l)

— adj

not able to be replaced

THIS!!!!!

[The Glow Inc.]

Wow.

2 people voted yes.

I guess there ARE GnR fans who want him to retire.

[bacardimayne]

Wow.

2 people voted yes.

I guess there ARE GnR fans who want him to retire.

So, I voted yes. Nothing wrong with that. Who are you to tell people what are GnR fans.

And yet anyone who thinks Axl should have fired Slash isn't a fan, right?

[The Glow Inc.]

Axl and Izzy founded this band and Axl came with the name.

How should Slash and Duff have fired him ? Besides : fire him for what ? For being an impredictable diva ?

For being late ? For having a temper ? Give me a break, that's part of what made this band famous to begin with.

Who would they have hired instead ? Someone as dull as Myles ?

I would find it more acceptable if there were more old line up members though than just one but still it wouldn't be right.

So you see nothing special in Axl compared to, let's say, Duff ? He's just as replaceable as anybody else ? ^^'

[mazifin96]

They would have not been able to fire him anyway.

[moreblack]

Nobody should've fired anybody.

[Vincent Vega]

Nobody should've fired anybody.

Steven should have been fired.

He and Matt are the only ones who were truly fired.

Gilby himself said he didn't quit, nor was he fired. The checks simply stopped coming in. Also, Slash seems to imply there was some argument between Gilby, Duff and Axl which led to him being "let go." And Gilby at the time said Duff and Axl had a separate idea of where Guns should go from Slash, himself, and Matt. Seems Duff was in agreement with Axl at that period in time.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Indigo Child

[JONEZY]

Should Slash, Duff and/or Izzy/Matt have fired Axl sometime between 1990-1996?

Would the band have been better off without him post AFD?

No. Axl would never have been fired. 85,86,87, maybe, but once they became huge in 1988, no way would/could they get rid of Axl. They could have survived with the new drummer(Matt), but once Izzy left, things went downhill.

[Bumble's Bridge Pickup]

No, I don't think firing Axl would have been a good decision. However had they actually done that, I'd have no problem with it.

[SunnyDRE]

Axl and Izzy founded this band and Axl came with the name.

How should Slash and Duff have fired him ? Besides : fire him for what ? For being an impredictable diva ?

For being late ? For having a temper ? Give me a break, that's part of what made this band famous to begin with.

No it isn't.

it was the music.

everything is just tabloid fodder, and stuff to gossip about among fans.

[Vincent Vega]

Axl and Izzy founded this band and Axl came with the name.

How should Slash and Duff have fired him ? Besides : fire him for what ? For being an impredictable diva ?

For being late ? For having a temper ? Give me a break, that's part of what made this band famous to begin with.

Who would they have hired instead ? Someone as dull as Myles ?

I would find it more acceptable if there were more old line up members though than just one but still it wouldn't be right.

So you see nothing special in Axl compared to, let's say, Duff ? He's just as replaceable as anybody else ? ^^'

Look, its not worth the time to pour over fallacies of logic with your weak arguments and examples. I'll try to do this in as simple terms as possible.

They were all partners. I doubt there was any clean dissolution protocol agreed to at the beginning. No one really could have been "fired". It would have been a mess. But if they could be hypothetically fired by majority rule with some cash out option then I still wouldn't see a problem with reinventions of the band so long as the brand wasn't being prostituted. If Axl's new Guns N' Roses was far better than the other band to the point the vestiges of the old brand weren't even needed--then I wouldn't care that much. But that's not how it is. Axl should just call his band Chinese Democracy and put the old name to rest instead of wresting the value it once held in the past. Axl should move on.

Axl and Izzy may have founded Guns N' Roses and the name but they all became equals when they were, in good faith, partners in the band. If Slash, Duff, and Steven were Axl and Izzy's employees then that would be fine had it been agreed to in the beginning. For a good example, there are interesting stories on the McDonalds brothers keeping their original McDonalds restaurant even after selling the brand and business in good faith to Ray Kroc. Ray Kroc allegedly built a McDonalds across the street and just to put them out of business.

Right, I don't see anything special in Axl, especially post-1991, honest. Axl is just a singer. Who would Slash and Duff hire? Layne Staley. Layne Staley in 1994 in would have been perfection.

I don't see how you feel a band can be limited by its members or just Axl Rose, especially if you like the new Guns N' Roses. That is really closed minded thinking. That's like saying there could never be a song better than November Rain. November Rain is the best song I've ever heard but I think it's possible there could be a better song that comes out in the future. Axl isn't a god and he isn't the be all and end of all of all singers.

You tell Axl to move on, but why can't you? Why are you so obsessed with the name?

I'll say it nice and big and slowly too:

SLASH, DUFF, AND IZZY DO NOT GIVE A FUCK THAT AXL IS USING THE NAME. THEY DIDN'T IN 1992. THEY DIDN'T IN 1995. THEY DON'T NOW. WHY. DO. YOU?

[moreblack]

Axl and Izzy founded this band and Axl came with the name.

How should Slash and Duff have fired him ? Besides : fire him for what ? For being an impredictable diva ?

For being late ? For having a temper ? Give me a break, that's part of what made this band famous to begin with.

No it isn't.

it was the music.

everything is just tabloid fodder, and stuff to gossip about among fans.

hype can't take the place of the songs at the top of the ladder

[Vincent Vega]

Axl and Izzy founded this band and Axl came with the name.

How should Slash and Duff have fired him ? Besides : fire him for what ? For being an impredictable diva ?

For being late ? For having a temper ? Give me a break, that's part of what made this band famous to begin with.

No it isn't.

it was the music.

everything is just tabloid fodder, and stuff to gossip about among fans.

hype can't take the place of the songs at the top of the ladder

Yeah, Velvet Revolver proved that

All hype, crappy ass music made with a gay, David Bowie wannabe singer.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Indigo Child

[The Glow Inc.]

Right, I don't see anything special in Axl, especially post-1991, honest. Axl is just a singer

That's where I disagree.

He may not be my favourite singer ( Mike Patton is ) but I can't see how anybody could replace that voice, that rasp, that high pitched scream and all the colours that he's capable of expressing.

While it's the chemistry between the five original members that made AFD what it is, I think that Axl is most definitely the most recognizable element of the band. You can immediately tell that it's him singing.

[the]

Right, I don't see anything special in Axl, especially post-1991, honest. Axl is just a singer

That's where I disagree.

He may not be my favourite singer ( Mike Patton is ) but I can't see how anybody could replace that voice, that rasp, that high pitched scream and all the colours that he's capable of expressing.

While it's the chemistry between the five original members that made AFD what it is, I think that Axl is most definitely the most recognizable element of the band. You can immediately tell that it's him singing.

I might get banned by the time you read this.

Axl is recognizable but at the end of the day he is one of many bands I listen to. His voice was really refreshing to hear but everything can be a gimmick overtime and you'll want something new. Layne Staley would have been something new in 1994. Even I have moved on from Guns N' Roses. I don't really listen to them or AiC anymore.

[Vincent Vega]

Right, I don't see anything special in Axl, especially post-1991, honest. Axl is just a singer

That's where I disagree.

He may not be my favourite singer ( Mike Patton is ) but I can't see how anybody could replace that voice, that rasp, that high pitched scream and all the colours that he's capable of expressing.

While it's the chemistry between the five original members that made AFD what it is, I think that Axl is most definitely the most recognizable element of the band. You can immediately tell that it's him singing.

I might get banned by the time you read this.

Axl is recognizable but at the end of the day he is one of many bands I listen to. His voice was really refreshing to hear but everything can be a gimmick overtime and you'll want something new. Layne Staley would have been something new in 1994. Even I have moved on from Guns N' Roses. I don't really listen to them or AiC anymore.

If you've moved on from Guns, and you don't listen to them anymore, why are you here if not just to cupcake?

EDIT: Layne Stanley was on the way out by 1994. AiC came out in 1990-1992.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Indigo Child

[the]

If you've moved on from Guns, and you don't listen to them anymore, why are you here if not just to cupcake?

EDIT: Layne Stanley was on the way out by 1994. AiC came out in 1990-1992.

I'm not trolling. I never cupcake. I have moved on from Guns N' Roses. I didn't say that I hated them. You think everyone on this forum listens to them every day?

Layne Stalye on his way out in 1994? Have you listened to Mad Season? Have you listened to Again by AiC from 1996? Get a life dude. Save yourself some pride and stop wasting your life on forums. I'll stop if you stop.

Edit: yeah I'm done. I'm logging off. Happy trails to you.

Edited December 21, 2010 by the

[Apollo]

I think they should have taken a 5 year break. Everybody go do whattever they want. Solo albums, dissapear, whatever they wanted to do. The only stipulation is no new GnR business, and no badmouthing each other in the press.

.

Then get back together and see what they could come up with.

[Apollo]

Axl and Izzy founded this band and Axl came with the name.

How should Slash and Duff have fired him ? Besides : fire him for what ? For being an impredictable diva ?

For being late ? For having a temper ? Give me a break, that's part of what made this band famous to begin with.

No it isn't.

it was the music.

everything is just tabloid fodder, and stuff to gossip about among fans.

This is 100 percent correct. Only a few morons care more about that extra bs. Worlds most dangerous band, not giving in to the man, fighting, temper tantrums, showing up late, riots, the name of the band.......all that stuff is fodder for clowns. There are a thousand other bands that can do all that other stuff. But how many bands can come up with Jungle, November Rain, Paradise City, Don't Cry, Estranged, Coma, etc?????

.

It's the music, people. All that other crap is ridiculous.