saber_ Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Do you believe that people, in general, on average, as a whole, are a bit too shitty to Axl?I mean, I just re-read the chats and was sort of taken aback about how shitty people were to him. Day in and day out, it seems people just can't let go of certain things, and have villainized him. He doesn't deserve to be villianized, and you know it. Or don't you? Agree or disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saber_ Posted July 12, 2011 Author Share Posted July 12, 2011 Do you believe that people, in general, on average, as a whole, are a bit too shitty to Axl?I mean, I just re-read the chats and was sort of taken aback about how shitty people were to him. Day in and day out, it seems people just can't let go of certain things, and have villainized him. He doesn't deserve to be villianized, and you know it. Or don't you? Agree or disagree?Yes they are I agree 100% he does not deserve a lot of the shit he receives.................Really? Or are you bullshitting me? Because I honestly, truly, 100% believe that people are way too harsh on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyDRE Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 It's easy to list the weird/wtf/unpopular things he's done over the years since the very beginning. It's not a short list, and you gotta weigh that against the joy the songs/performances bring you. Split the difference and you get your answer...Obviously it varies with each individual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetness Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Axl Rose is one of my all time favorite singers, I idolized him for years when I was younger, but there's no denying he brings all of the shit he gets on to himself. The only people who are too harsh on Axl Rose are people who hate GNR and talk about how overrated they were and how annoying Axl's voice is etc. Concerned fans are entitled to their opinions, at least that's the way I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Sometimes they are yeah but other times he deserves all the shit that comes his way. I like the new band and I like CD but I hate the insistence on starting late and total contempt he shows for his fans on many occasions. I don't see a problem with calling him on his shit in the same way I have no problem admitting when I like something he's done. I just won't defend Axl over a lot a the shit I find indefensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNR123GNR456 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Yes. Sure, some stuff is warranted, but the biggest reason why alot of people don't like Axl today is becuase a member left 15 year's ago. Most of those people can't move on, can't get used to change, can't admit that maybe there will never be a reunion. But, if Axl reunited with Slash, even for one song, they would be all over Axl with praise, show's you the kind of hypocrites they are. Like I said before, Axl can release two albums in 1 year, tour for another 3 years straight, make video's, have interviews, and promote the hell out of the new albums, take full blame for the reunion, cure cancer, give half of his money to charities, but people would still hate him becuase of him using the name "Guns N' Roses," and not playing with Slash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyDRE Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 unless he releases a greatest of all time album (cd isn't one), he has to change the name. die hards and casual fans will never "get over it".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmo Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 He kinda deserves most of the treatment he deserves. What's unfair is people's attitude towards the new band - they have absolutely nothing to do with the old band dissolving and hating them does not bring the old one back. BBF, Ashba, everyone gets undeserved hatred from people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Sure, some stuff is warranted, but the biggest reason why alot of people don't like Axl today is becuase a member left 15 year's ago. Not really seeing as how that member doesn't come in for that amount of shit. It's the fact he kept that name and his behaviour that gets him shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNR123GNR456 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 unless he releases a greatest of all time album (cd isn't one), he has to change the name. die hards and casual fans will never "get over it"....They should get over it. It's almost a fact more than an opinion that the old GN'R will never reunite. People just can't move on, can't get with the times. It's like the fan's of Whitesnake saying that Steve Vai is their guitarist, and Coverdale is nothing without him. Band's change, band's lose and gain member's. For some reason with GN'R, the old band is the only band and their not allowed to change member's, or play the old material that laot of fans want to hear and Axl helped make famous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB. Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Sometimes yes, depends.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocketQueen1985 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Yes. I get the late starts and all that stuff, he does bring that on himself. But to critizise his looks and all that superficial stuff is so lame. Some people hate on him no matter what he does, that's what annoys me. Also, the whole GNR name thing - get over it already! He is still friends with Izzy and Duff, so if they can let it go and move on then why can't some fans? No one was forced to sign and no one was forced to leave the band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquor & Whores Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Yes.In general, the media/press write shit about him, 'cos he doesn't give a shit about themSince '94 when he disappeared, the majority of them have been trying to destroy him, and unfortunately they didn't make it.First of all they helped him to become a star but then when he told them to fuck off they decided to prove him that he won't be able to be successful without them.It turned out that he doesn't need them to achieve his goals, to sell out 50,000 crowds, 5 million records and to be an icon for many.That's a bitter pill for them to swallow... Edited July 12, 2011 by DrDrei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyDRE Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 unless he releases a greatest of all time album (cd isn't one), he has to change the name. die hards and casual fans will never "get over it"....They should get over it. It's almost a fact more than an opinion that the old GN'R will never reunite. People just can't move on, can't get with the times. It's like the fan's of Whitesnake saying that Steve Vai is their guitarist, and Coverdale is nothing without him. Band's change, band's lose and gain member's. For some reason with GN'R, the old band is the only band and their not allowed to change member's, or play the old material that laot of fans want to hear and Axl helped make famous.It's not just Axl and Slash. It's the fact that he's the ONLY one left, and the setlist is much much more old guns, than Nu Guns. Changing a member, or two, or even three is not that big of a deal, but when you're the only one left standing, maybe it's time to make a fresh new start. It's like reading Harry Potter and then moving on to the next chapter with The Lord of The Rings. But the books still called Harry Potter. Both good books in their own right, but not under the same title. Just ain't right.its like someone other than jk rowling writing the books... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 unless he releases a greatest of all time album (cd isn't one), he has to change the name. die hards and casual fans will never "get over it"....They should get over it. It's almost a fact more than an opinion that the old GN'R will never reunite. People just can't move on, can't get with the times. It's like the fan's of Whitesnake saying that Steve Vai is their guitarist, and Coverdale is nothing without him. Band's change, band's lose and gain member's. For some reason with GN'R, the old band is the only band and their not allowed to change member's, or play the old material that laot of fans want to hear and Axl helped make famous.It's not just Axl and Slash. It's the fact that he's the ONLY one left, and the setlist is much much more old guns, than Nu Guns. Changing a member, or two, or even three is not that big of a deal, but when you're the only one left standing, maybe it's time to make a fresh new start. It's like reading Harry Potter and then moving on to the next chapter with The Lord of The Rings. But the books still called Harry Potter. Both good books in their own right, but not under the same title. Just ain't right.its like someone other than jk rowling writing the books...No....because Axl helped write everything. Why don't people complain about velvet revolver playing old GnR songs?In general Axl receives the praise and criticism he deserves from the majority of people not on GnR forums.Late starts, cancelled shows, a lack of music, songs off Chinese democracy, etc. All deserve honest opinions - even if they are bad.Fans still crying about the name or whining about Axl being mean to Slash....totally ridiculous. In no way shape or form should a fan be more upset about something than an actual band member. Izzy and Diff have joined Axl on stage. Slash apparently went to axls house to talk with him. Those guys have moved on with their lives and careers.....but a fan can't? Weird. Posting crap specifically just to bash Axl or the new guys on a GnR forum is just idiotic. And they should be banned. But criticising a song or show or an Axl action...soley based on THAT and having nothing to do with Slash or your obsession with the legacy of the name....then fire away. That's what should happen on a forum.A better example than the rowling one. Your friend and his wife got divorced 15 years ago. Both of them are remarried and moved on with their lives. And they are casual friends now. Do you still go on HER Facebook page and badmouth her for divorcing your friend 15 years ago???? No. People would say u were crazy and a stalker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbacca Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Do you believe that people, in general, on average, as a whole, are a bit too shitty to Axl?I mean, I just re-read the chats and was sort of taken aback about how shitty people were to him. Day in and day out, it seems people just can't let go of certain things, and have villainized him. He doesn't deserve to be villianized, and you know it. Or don't you? Agree or disagree?Yes they are I agree 100% he does not deserve a lot of the shit he receives.................+1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNR123GNR456 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 See vr play covers of gnr songs. Covers. The majority of vrs setlist are comprised of velvet revolver songs. Imagine that? Actually having your own material to play instead relying on past sucesses. Also vr has two members covering songs they actually played on, and have the decency not to call themselves gnr. Totally different situation.As for the name...read my last post. Sorry, its just not right. And I can say that knowing I'm not in the minority like you. No personal offense intended.Axl is playing songs he wrote as well. All of the songs Axl plays today on tour are songs that he wrote, or had a part in the writing.The reason Velvet Revolver don't use the name Guns N' Roses is becuase Axl isn't in the band. If Axl never put in the contract that Axl would keep the name if he was fired, and was fired, I believe the other member's would still call it Guns N' Roses. Hell, Slash still allows magazine, and interview's to site him the "Former Guns N' Roses guitarist," even he hasn't been in the band for over 15 year's, if that isn't living off past sucess I don't know what is. Axl is still using Guns N' Roses becuase he is obligated to. He can use it becuase his former member's signed it over, and don't really seem to be against him using the name. Which bring's me to the fans who feel such a tight bond to the old band, and the name. If Slash and the other former members have no negatvity to Axl using "Guns N' Roses" for his band, then we do the fans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhazUp Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 See vr play covers of gnr songs. Covers. The majority of vrs setlist are comprised of velvet revolver songs. Imagine that? Actually having your own material to play instead relying on past sucesses. Also vr has two members covering songs they actually played on, and have the decency not to call themselves gnr. Totally different situation.As for the name...read my last post. Sorry, its just not right. And I can say that knowing I'm not in the minority like you. No personal offense intended.Axl is playing songs he wrote as well. All of the songs Axl plays today on tour are songs that he wrote, or had a part in the writing.The reason Velvet Revolver don't use the name Guns N' Roses is becuase Axl isn't in the band. If Axl never put in the contract that Axl would keep the name if he was fired, and was fired, I believe the other member's would still call it Guns N' Roses. Hell, Slash still allows magazine, and interview's to site him the "Former Guns N' Roses guitarist," even he hasn't been in the band for over 15 year's, if that isn't living off past sucess I don't know what is. Axl is still using Guns N' Roses becuase he is obligated to. He can use it becuase his former member's signed it over, and don't really seem to be against him using the name. Which bring's me to the fans who feel such a tight bond to the old band, and the name. If Slash and the other former members have no negatvity to Axl using "Guns N' Roses" for his band, then we do the fans?Well to be fair "Former guitarist" implies he was in the band and isn't anymore which is true. And plus that is the band that people would most associate because GNR is a bigger name. So it makes sense, I don't see any problem with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 See vr play covers of gnr songs. Covers. The majority of vrs setlist are comprised of velvet revolver songs. Imagine that? Actually having your own material to play instead relying on past sucesses. Also vr has two members covering songs they actually played on, and have the decency not to call themselves gnr. Totally different situation.As for the name...read my last post. Sorry, its just not right. And I can say that knowing I'm not in the minority like you. No personal offense intended.I strongly and respectfully disagree.Axl helped create those songs....so he has the right to perform them. I dont understand the logic of saying he can't. Plant, Tyler, Izzy, jagger, Cornell all these guys did tours and played songs created by their old band. Using your logic then all old GnR songs should never be performed live....unless the old band reunites? What a shame that would be for music fans!!!!I just don't get how a fan can be more upset about the name of a band than the actual members of the band. For me.....I care about the music. I couldnt care less about the name of the band, who is in the band, and what percentage of the song was written by who. The song us what is important to me. Not the legacy of a name of a band from 15 years ago.I fully support the new band.....but I still want to hear Axl sing the songs that he helped make famous.Axl owns the name Guns n Roses. A band he helped start. What good does it do as a fan to be mad about him using the name 15 years later? The name or legacy of a band shouldn't be more important to you than it is to Slash. He moved on....so should you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITW 2012 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I understand people are upset that he kept the name, but I don't really care. Just wish Axl could find a way to put out more music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I understand people are upset that he kept the name, but I don't really care. Just wish Axl could find a way to put out more music.Exactly.Bobo....all what you say is almost correct. But at the end of the day.....why do u care so much? Imo you are making it too important. There are way worse or more important things in life to take a stand on.I want to hear music that Axl sings on. That is where my focus is. I am curious to hear Slash's next solo album. I will check out anything that Duff or Izzy release. I will give a listen to any songs that dj or Fortus, etc play on. And I would love to see VR hire a new singer and put out another album. ALL of that takes up the time I devote to "thinking" about music. Why do u want to dwell on the past so much? Lots of things suck. Lots of crappy things happen. Dwelling on those things decades later isn't good four anybody's soul or spirit. There is so much to enjoy in the world and in the music world.....I just don't understand why fans get passed the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 On a side note. I've always wished bands would do two shows in every city. One night would be their classics and concert staples. The other night would be all the songs off of the album they were touring for. And then to make it long enough song-wise they could do a few acoustic versions of their popular songs and a few covers or some of the songs they never play live. GnR could pull out civil war, don't Damn me and estranged the second show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyDRE Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) if the music on cd was good, no one would care about the name.....same way people get pissed that the phantom menace is part of the star wars saga..... Edited July 13, 2011 by SunnyDRE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Do you believe that people, in general, on average, as a whole, are a bit too shitty to Axl?I mean, I just re-read the chats and was sort of taken aback about how shitty people were to him. Day in and day out, it seems people just can't let go of certain things, and have villainized him. He doesn't deserve to be villianized, and you know it. Or don't you? Agree or disagree?In a nutshell - it ties in to the courtroom stuff to do with Erin and Stephanie he's never answered to, the riots that broke out because he kept throwing tantrums, plus making people wait for years for new music, and carrying on the GNR name with no other original members. You can't escape a past that was so high profile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts