Jump to content

Should Axl give the new GNR members partial ownership in the GNR name?


SONOFABITCH

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Haha....not a chance. The GNR brand is all Axl has left. Don't believe me? Imagine if CD would have had a different name on the cover. Without a single,video or promotion? The thing would have sold like 5,000 copies (note to would be overly impulsive, angry Axl fans...I love CD).

Axl will never, ever....EVER allow his livelihood to slip through his fingers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else think Axl should give partial ownership of the band name to the new GNR members. What better way to show the world they are a real band and these guys really are Guns N' Roses. If you don't think so, why not?

This is a great idea! What a great way to show the world that this is the real Guns N' Roses :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha....not a chance. The GNR brand is all Axl has left. Don't believe me? Imagine if CD would have had a different name on the cover. Without a single,video or promotion? The thing would have sold like 5,000 copies (note to would be overly impulsive, angry Axl fans...I love CD).

Axl will never, ever....EVER allow his livelihood to slip through his fingers.

Bullshit. Axl Rose the name would sell just fine. He has like Ozzy status on his own.

Except that Ozzy had success on his own and didn't call himself Black Sabbath when he left. Other than that yeah they're exactly the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha....not a chance. The GNR brand is all Axl has left. Don't believe me? Imagine if CD would have had a different name on the cover. Without a single,video or promotion? The thing would have sold like 5,000 copies (note to would be overly impulsive, angry Axl fans...I love CD).

Axl will never, ever....EVER allow his livelihood to slip through his fingers.

Bullshit. Axl Rose the name would sell just fine. He has like Ozzy status on his own.

Except that Ozzy had success on his own and didn't call himself Black Sabbath when he left. Other than that yeah they're exactly the same.

Except Axl never left Guns N' Roses,and owns the name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else think Axl should give partial ownership of the band name to the new GNR members. What better way to show the world they are a real band and these guys really are Guns N' Roses. If you don't think so, why not?

Yes that would be a good idea. Knowing the haters they would call it a "publicity stunt"

If it was minute fractional non-voting ownership then I could see it as a publicity stunt. If it were egalitarian where everyone was equal, even causing Axl Rose to have a minority stake in the band--then I am all for it.

Indeed, cause then Axl would retire.

I think you guys would love an MDC to happen to Axl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else think Axl should give partial ownership of the band name to the new GNR members. What better way to show the world they are a real band and these guys really are Guns N' Roses. If you don't think so, why not?

No, Axl owns the Guns N' Roses name and it should stay that way. That however, takes nothing away from the current line-up really being Guns N' Roses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, cause then Axl would retire.

I think you guys would love an MDC to happen to Axl.

I think I would love the idea of you making well thought out arguments and posts like Ali instead of being the resident rabble rouser. What's an MDC? I'm not going to look it up.

Resident rabble rouser? You mean like the OP, who has made his hatred of the new band clear in pretty much every post he's made and only made this thread to stir shit?

MDC-= Mark David Chapman, you know, the guy who shot John Lennon to death because Chapman felt Lennon was a phony who had wronged him. I am firmly in the belief that many Slashites would love something like that to happen to Axl at this point. Your hatred of Axl seems to grow daily as the new band becomes tighter, the trolling of this section by the Slashites is increasing as well. It's very fucking tiresome. It's like you have this need to be killjoys and anger or piss off anyone who likes the new band.

Edited by Indigo Child
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Axl fought too hard to gain control of the band name to ever give anyone else a piece of the action. Besides he is a control freak and would never give up even a sliver of that control to someone else...As the saying goes it is good to be King!

Yeah too bad so sad your boy was such a Pussy he couldn't take anything and quit. LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, cause then Axl would retire.

I think you guys would love an MDC to happen to Axl.

I think I would love the idea of you making well thought out arguments and posts like Ali instead of being the resident rabble rouser. What's an MDC? I'm not going to look it up.

Resident rabble rouser? You mean like the OP, who has made his hatred of the new band clear in pretty much every post he's made and only made this thread to stir shit?

MDC-= Mark David Chapman, you know, the guy who shot John Lennon to death because Chapman felt Lennon was a phony who had wronged him. I am firmly in the belief that many Slashites would love something like that to happen to Axl at this point. Your hatred of Axl seems to grow daily as the new band becomes tighter, the trolling of this section by the Slashites is increasing as well. It's very fucking tiresome. It's like you have this need to be killjoys and anger or piss off anyone who likes the new band.

you're insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to take away from the contributions of the original or current line-up but really, Axl really was/is Guns N' Roses.

No, he could never, has never done it on his own. He could never be a Roger Waters.

He is however, the only one out of all of them that is solely defined by being in GNR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahaha, I feel like you want to trap some people with this thread. That's not very nice of you. But it's an interesting question. Does Dizzy have any partial ownership? He should, after all this time and the great songs he co-wrote on CD.

Axl owns the name. Hence, this new band is Guns N' Roses, no matter who is in the band, for me, Axl Rose = Guns N' Roses, even though it's not the 1987 Guns N' Roses, obviously, everyone can only agree with this statement. It's 2010 Guns N' Roses, new team, new spirit, new songs.

The "new" GNR members (it's hard to call Tommy Stinson, Richard Fortus, Bumblefoot new anymore though) should deserve partial ownership... in 10 years from now. If they make another album, keep on touring, then I guess at some point Axl will definitely share more with them. But you gotta understand it's a very very hard situation, it's only logical that he earns the name by himself for now.

But if Tommy Stinson is still here in 2020, and if 2 other albums have come out by then, he should definitely get some GNR ownership for all the material he'll have worked on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to take away from the contributions of the original or current line-up but really, Axl really was/is Guns N' Roses.

No, he could never, has never done it on his own. He could never be a Roger Waters.

He is however, the only one out of all of them that is solely defined by being in GNR.

I know, he's just a talentless hack, right Moreblack. I mean Izzy and Steven are fucking superstars! Come on, babe, admit your true feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...