dalsh327 Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 In the name? No. But if he did, that means if someone was going to sue GNR, they'd be included in the lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 So is this it? You guys aren't going to stop the anti-Axl bile until either he retires, reunites, or relinquishes the name to Slash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowmass Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 This isn't GnR now. What we have now is Axl Rose solo touring under the GnR banner for publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 (edited) This isn't GnR now. What we have now is Axl Rose solo touring under the GnR banner for publicity.Wrong. This is GN'R. Sadly for people like you, Axl wouldn't let one weak, passive aggressive man with a top hat end Guns. Edited December 22, 2010 by Indigo Child Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w6a6x6l6 Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 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.That makes no sense at all. There have been several published "best rock singer of all time" polls this month in major magazines and Axl has either won or placed very high. The name Axl Rose is a brand name, and everybody in rock knows who he is..If CD sold 3 million copies world wide, how many of those sales would not have happened if it was Axl Rose Band? Anybody who bought the album, or paid a hundred dollars to go see them in concert KNOWS that its Axl and that slash, duff and izzy aren't in the band anymore. .Your statement is just silly. It's like saying that people go to a Queen show now and go "what the fuck? Where is freddy mercury?"wait ............ what ???? .................... Freddy's not in Queen anymore ????? wtf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintari Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 (edited) 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.Oh yeah. I forgot about all those triple platinum, Axl Rose solo albums that were released. I don't know how I overlooked those. Maybe it's because I don't live in fairy tale land...where the streets are covered with sugar coated gum drops and little pixies fly over my head, showering naked Megan Foxs (or in your case, 1987 Axls) from the sky. but axl never released a solo album, there is no grounds for comparison between the two - you're dumb as shit also.You call me "dumb as shit", whilst totally failing at comprehension. Irony much? Edited December 22, 2010 by Nintari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 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.Oh yeah. I forgot about all those triple platinum, Axl Rose solo albums that were released. I don't know how I overlooked those. Maybe it's because I don't live in fairy tale land...where the streets are covered with sugar coated gum drops and little pixies fly over my head, showering naked Megan Foxs (or in your case, 1987 Axls) from the sky. but axl never released a solo album, there is no grounds for comparison between the two - you're dumb as shit also.You call me "dumb as shit", whilst totally failing at comprehension. Irony much?Chinese Democracy is an album by Guns N' Roses.To date, Axl hasn't released a solo album. The idea of it sounds cool though, more instrumental and experimental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanna1975 Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 No, why should he do?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesPaul_Player_91 Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 He'd never do it and I don't think there's any need. Behind the scenes and in the administration side of stuff it may not be your typical band but that's the way GN'R is it won't change any time soon. You can call it Axl's solo band if it makes you feel better but at the end of the day it's a fact that Guns N' Roses put out an album in 2008 called Chinese Democracy. As long as the music and live shows are good that's all that matters IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB. Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 He'd never do it and I don't think there's any need. Behind the scenes and in the administration side of stuff it may not be your typical band but that's the way GN'R is it won't change any time soon. You can call it Axl's solo band if it makes you feel better but at the end of the day it's a fact that Guns N' Roses put out an album in 2008 called Chinese Democracy. As long as the music and live shows are good that's all that matters IMO.Well said, thank you.(the posting in the threads are getting more and more childlike every day!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlashFinck666 Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 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.That makes no sense at all. There have been several published "best rock singer of all time" polls this month in major magazines and Axl has either won or placed very high. The name Axl Rose is a brand name, and everybody in rock knows who he is..If CD sold 3 million copies world wide, how many of those sales would not have happened if it was Axl Rose Band? Anybody who bought the album, or paid a hundred dollars to go see them in concert KNOWS that its Axl and that slash, duff and izzy aren't in the band anymore. .Your statement is just silly. It's like saying that people go to a Queen show now and go "what the fuck? Where is freddy mercury?"wait ............ what ???? .................... Freddy's not in Queen anymore ????? wtf Trust me 99% of the public actually think Slash is still in GNR they dont know about CD because it had no promotion,no videos etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axl8302 Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 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.That makes no sense at all. There have been several published "best rock singer of all time" polls this month in major magazines and Axl has either won or placed very high. The name Axl Rose is a brand name, and everybody in rock knows who he is..If CD sold 3 million copies world wide, how many of those sales would not have happened if it was Axl Rose Band? Anybody who bought the album, or paid a hundred dollars to go see them in concert KNOWS that its Axl and that slash, duff and izzy aren't in the band anymore. .Your statement is just silly. It's like saying that people go to a Queen show now and go "what the fuck? Where is freddy mercury?"wait ............ what ???? .................... Freddy's not in Queen anymore ????? wtf Trust me 99% of the public actually think Slash is still in GNR they dont know about CD because it had no promotion,no videos etc etcBullshit... did you pull that statistic out of your ass like most of your other posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todo Poderoso Timão Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 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?There's zero possibility.Besides, GNR only still exists because it is how it is: one owner, one boss, one dictatorship - things only happen the way he wants, otherwise don't happen. Period.Sharing ownership would force the band to fall apart in weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 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?There's zero possibility.Besides, GNR only still exists because it is how it is: one owner, one boss, one dictatorship - things only happen the way he wants, otherwise don't happen. Period.Sharing ownership would force the band to fall apart in weeks.We saw what having a "Democracy" in Guns did to the original band.To quote the Sopranos, "(They) need a supreme commander at the top, not the fuckin' Dave Clark Five." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyDRE Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 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?There's zero possibility.Besides, GNR only still exists because it is how it is: one owner, one boss, one dictatorship - things only happen the way he wants, otherwise don't happen. Period.Sharing ownership would force the band to fall apart in weeks.We saw what having a "Democracy" in Guns did to the original band.5 albums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 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?There's zero possibility.Besides, GNR only still exists because it is how it is: one owner, one boss, one dictatorship - things only happen the way he wants, otherwise don't happen. Period.Sharing ownership would force the band to fall apart in weeks.We saw what having a "Democracy" in Guns did to the original band.5 albums.And a burnt out break up of the original band cause Top Hat boy decided he wanted it to be 1987 forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintari Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 (edited) 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.Oh yeah. I forgot about all those triple platinum, Axl Rose solo albums that were released. I don't know how I overlooked those. Maybe it's because I don't live in fairy tale land...where the streets are covered with sugar coated gum drops and little pixies fly over my head, showering naked Megan Foxs (or in your case, 1987 Axls) from the sky. but axl never released a solo album, there is no grounds for comparison between the two - you're dumb as shit also.You call me "dumb as shit", whilst totally failing at comprehension. Irony much?Chinese Democracy is an album by Guns N' Roses.To date, Axl hasn't released a solo album. The idea of it sounds cool though, more instrumental and experimental.*facepalm*You don't think I know this? I said that because someone said Axl would be like Ozzy if he were a solo artist, even though Axl's NOT a solo artist and never has been. Get it? How does he know that if it's never happened? Does he have a crystal ball?There's one thing I DO know though. If CD were a solo record, it certainly wouldn't have been equal to one of Ozzy's solo records. Ozzy put out radio friendly music with singles that appealed to broad audiences. CD didn't have a single with mass appeal, didn't release a video...and had no promotion. So it's pretty much fair to say the name on the cover did most of the selling. You really can't argue against that because, like I said, not one song on the album was a hit single with an accompanying video. So if it's not the music that sold the record and it's not a video...then what's left? The brand..... Edited December 22, 2010 by Nintari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 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.Oh yeah. I forgot about all those triple platinum, Axl Rose solo albums that were released. I don't know how I overlooked those. Maybe it's because I don't live in fairy tale land...where the streets are covered with sugar coated gum drops and little pixies fly over my head, showering naked Megan Foxs (or in your case, 1987 Axls) from the sky. but axl never released a solo album, there is no grounds for comparison between the two - you're dumb as shit also.You call me "dumb as shit", whilst totally failing at comprehension. Irony much?Chinese Democracy is an album by Guns N' Roses.To date, Axl hasn't released a solo album. The idea of it sounds cool though, more instrumental and experimental.*facepalm*You don't think I know this? I said that because someone said Axl would be like Ozzy if he were a solo artist, even though Axl's NOT a solo artist and never has been. Get it? How does he know that if it's never happened? Does he have a crystal ball?There's one thing I DO know though. If CD were a solo record, it certainly wouldn't have been equal to one of Ozzy's solo records. Ozzy put out radio friendly music with singles that appealed to broad audiences. CD didn't have a single with mass appeal, didn't release a video...and had no promotion. So it's pretty much fair to say the name on the cover did most of the selling. You really can't argue against that because, like I said, not one song on the album had a hit single or video. So if it's not the music and it's not a video...then what's left? The brand.....Mhm. Axl should just pack it in and retire, right Nintari? Gotta leave room for that sexy Top Hat Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintari Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 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.Oh yeah. I forgot about all those triple platinum, Axl Rose solo albums that were released. I don't know how I overlooked those. Maybe it's because I don't live in fairy tale land...where the streets are covered with sugar coated gum drops and little pixies fly over my head, showering naked Megan Foxs (or in your case, 1987 Axls) from the sky. but axl never released a solo album, there is no grounds for comparison between the two - you're dumb as shit also.You call me "dumb as shit", whilst totally failing at comprehension. Irony much?Chinese Democracy is an album by Guns N' Roses.To date, Axl hasn't released a solo album. The idea of it sounds cool though, more instrumental and experimental.*facepalm*You don't think I know this? I said that because someone said Axl would be like Ozzy if he were a solo artist, even though Axl's NOT a solo artist and never has been. Get it? How does he know that if it's never happened? Does he have a crystal ball?There's one thing I DO know though. If CD were a solo record, it certainly wouldn't have been equal to one of Ozzy's solo records. Ozzy put out radio friendly music with singles that appealed to broad audiences. CD didn't have a single with mass appeal, didn't release a video...and had no promotion. So it's pretty much fair to say the name on the cover did most of the selling. You really can't argue against that because, like I said, not one song on the album had a hit single or video. So if it's not the music and it's not a video...then what's left? The brand.....Mhm. Axl should just pack it in and retire, right Nintari? Gotta leave room for that sexy Top Hat Man.What does that have to do with anything I said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 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.Oh yeah. I forgot about all those triple platinum, Axl Rose solo albums that were released. I don't know how I overlooked those. Maybe it's because I don't live in fairy tale land...where the streets are covered with sugar coated gum drops and little pixies fly over my head, showering naked Megan Foxs (or in your case, 1987 Axls) from the sky. but axl never released a solo album, there is no grounds for comparison between the two - you're dumb as shit also.You call me "dumb as shit", whilst totally failing at comprehension. Irony much?Chinese Democracy is an album by Guns N' Roses.To date, Axl hasn't released a solo album. The idea of it sounds cool though, more instrumental and experimental.*facepalm*You don't think I know this? I said that because someone said Axl would be like Ozzy if he were a solo artist, even though Axl's NOT a solo artist and never has been. Get it? How does he know that if it's never happened? Does he have a crystal ball?There's one thing I DO know though. If CD were a solo record, it certainly wouldn't have been equal to one of Ozzy's solo records. Ozzy put out radio friendly music with singles that appealed to broad audiences. CD didn't have a single with mass appeal, didn't release a video...and had no promotion. So it's pretty much fair to say the name on the cover did most of the selling. You really can't argue against that because, like I said, not one song on the album had a hit single or video. So if it's not the music and it's not a video...then what's left? The brand.....Mhm. Axl should just pack it in and retire, right Nintari? Gotta leave room for that sexy Top Hat Man.What does that have to do with anything I said?I'm asking you what you want.Just be honest dude. You bitch and moan and bitch and moan.What is it you want Axl to do outside of reuniting and pretending it's 1987 and Adler can speak normally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintari Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 (edited) 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.Oh yeah. I forgot about all those triple platinum, Axl Rose solo albums that were released. I don't know how I overlooked those. Maybe it's because I don't live in fairy tale land...where the streets are covered with sugar coated gum drops and little pixies fly over my head, showering naked Megan Foxs (or in your case, 1987 Axls) from the sky. but axl never released a solo album, there is no grounds for comparison between the two - you're dumb as shit also.You call me "dumb as shit", whilst totally failing at comprehension. Irony much?Chinese Democracy is an album by Guns N' Roses.To date, Axl hasn't released a solo album. The idea of it sounds cool though, more instrumental and experimental.*facepalm*You don't think I know this? I said that because someone said Axl would be like Ozzy if he were a solo artist, even though Axl's NOT a solo artist and never has been. Get it? How does he know that if it's never happened? Does he have a crystal ball?There's one thing I DO know though. If CD were a solo record, it certainly wouldn't have been equal to one of Ozzy's solo records. Ozzy put out radio friendly music with singles that appealed to broad audiences. CD didn't have a single with mass appeal, didn't release a video...and had no promotion. So it's pretty much fair to say the name on the cover did most of the selling. You really can't argue against that because, like I said, not one song on the album had a hit single or video. So if it's not the music and it's not a video...then what's left? The brand.....Mhm. Axl should just pack it in and retire, right Nintari? Gotta leave room for that sexy Top Hat Man.What does that have to do with anything I said?I'm asking you what you want.Just be honest dude. You bitch and moan and bitch and moan.What is it you want Axl to do outside of reuniting and pretending it's 1987 and Adler can speak normally?What do I want Axl to do? I don't care what he does. He can do whatever he wants. It's his life to live. My original point (the one you CONTINUE to miss) is that there's no way Axl ever relinquishes the GNR brand because it's, as of right now, too monetarily valuable. CD sold almost entirely on brand name alone and without it, he'd probably be going broke (no tour money etc.). He'd have to pull an Ozzy and that's something I don't think he ever wants to do.The OP asked a question. Should Axl share the GNR name. I answered and gave my reasoning on it. That's it. Edited December 22, 2010 by Nintari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todo Poderoso Timão Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 (edited) 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?There's zero possibility.Besides, GNR only still exists because it is how it is: one owner, one boss, one dictatorship - things only happen the way he wants, otherwise don't happen. Period.Sharing ownership would force the band to fall apart in weeks.We saw what having a "Democracy" in Guns did to the original band.5 albums.And a burnt out break up of the original band cause Top Hat boy decided he wanted it to be 1987 forever.That's exactly what i meant: Sharing ownership would force the band to fall apart in weeks, just like the old line-up, and I'm not blaming anyone for it, though I have my own clear opinion on the fact - but it's not the point here. Edited December 22, 2010 by Todo Poderoso Timão Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 (edited) Nintari - Don't even waste your time with this person. If I was Axl, I would be nervous I have fans as obsessed as he.Who is the more insane? The person who comes on a forum to discuss, and ends up having to defend a band he likes, or the guy who comes on a forum to cupcake and bash a band and singer he clearly hates day after day because of events that happened in 1996? I'd say the deranged, incredibly bitter person (you), who obsesses over a reunion that's never going to happen, is the one who would tend to make people nervous. The fact that your life is so sucky you have to spend your days on the forum of a band you loathe, and that you live in some sort of delusional existence where a reunion is just around the bend, is pretty sad. Edited December 22, 2010 by Indigo Child Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 So anyway, I think Pittman deserves 10% ownership of the name and the other members 15%.you be straight trollin' son.and your reunion still isn't going to happen I love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew07 Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 it would be a nice gesture but it probably shouldnt happen because if any of the current members leave on bad terms with axl and decides to sue it would be all the slash shit all over again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts