Can Somebody explain Axl's answer to me

[Cosmo]

3 years later (has it been that long?) I still don't fully understand

I think he's saying that GnR was always an evolving thing and the old members left because they didn't fit with GnR and where it was going.

In other words, the current lineup feels like GnR, whereas the older lineup wouldn't feel like GnR at this point.

..which is kinda dumb-ass, as everyone one knows that there was only ever one GN'R, and the current Axl + Hired hands is simply an attempt to cover the music live for the sake of the fans and Axl's ego.

What does it say on the top there? It doesn't look like "Axl + Hired hands". It looks like there's a Guns N' Roses up there to me.

While we're at it, what did it say on Chinese Democracy?

Nope, no "Axl + Hired hands" there either.

Don't feed the

They're fat as fuck and still hungry!!

Axl's lawyer talk strategy is simple: Talk around it, avoid lawsuits, never expose your opinion clearly and if you can't answer it, answer something else.

[axl_on_drums]

Not really a hard sentence to logically diagram. Are you telling me no one in this thread had to take a logic/philosophy 101 class?

How about decrypting it for us, O' Wise one

[SunnyDRE]

i think he's saying that the former members have portrayed the AFD lineup as the "real" GNR - which is a different thing than GNR really is. And so, whether or not the band feels like GNR depends on what you think GNR is.

I like this, but translation for me = I (AXL) was always and am, GNR.

[Spirit]

Nah, I don't think so. If you look at the situation objectively like the general public has than everything's pretty obvious. I think even though I'm hard on the guy I'm still much more of an Axl apologist than most.

Who's to judge what objectivity is in this case? All we got are different versions from different people's perspective. What are we going by then? Slash? Isn't that biased?

As I said before, none of us were present to observe the situation first hand.

Hypothetically, Slash could've been a mean manipulative asshole to Axl whenever he wasn't in the media (Personally I don't think he was). How would any of us know? If that really was the case though, wouldn't the "objective" opinion of this situation be dead wrong?

Word against word, that's all we have and will ever have I think. Usually when you have two distinct egocentrical standpoints, the most logical truth to situations like this lies somewhere in the middle. We're talking about human relations here, and we don't know exactly how the relationship was between Axl and Slash, 99% of it was probably personal and only 1% known to the public.

Actually.... Slash, Izzy, Duff, Matt and even Adler

Ya but when the entire band and many people around them give their explanation you can figure out the facts. I hate to use such an extreme example but there's people who deny the Holocaust to this day but we know it happened due to evidence and consensus.

I don't care about the media, I think it's fairly obvious Slash does try and make himself seem like the better man, as Axl does somewhat, but I really don't care about what the media thinks.

We have many people's words against one. No one backs up Axl's side at all. This gets mentioned a lot, what your saying. Word against word, Axl against Slash. The FACT is it's not Axl against Slash it's Axl against everyone. Everyone knows this so I'm done with this tired argument for today.

I don't really wanna participate in this war of "who's to blame". Actually, I was just giving my opinion on why not to be so quick to judge. I'm not saying either side is completely in the right, it's really a big mess when you look at it from our point of view.

Duff's recent statements makes him out to be on the fence regarding the whole thing as he actually blames the "business people" for fucking things up with the semi-original line-up.

Adler has no say in this really, as Slash said himself "he was out before it started to get real messy".

Slash came with the whole apologizing speech at Axl's house one morning a few years ago.. (Some people here says that not real/true... doesn't that make them biased? I mean, what are they basing it on.. that Slash always tells the truth, and Axl is a liar? How the fuck do people know this stuff?)

Axl against everyone... well not exactly. That's no fact at all.

[wasted]

did it feel like GNR when Adler got kicked out. probably. did it feel like GNR when Izzy left. to most people? when Slash quit? would it feel less like GNR under the circumstances to Axl? No?

[saber_]

I don't feel like using gimp or ms paint right now, so let's break it down. If your quote is accurate, he never gives the other half of the "either or" structure he initiates early on. So we must extract the meaning based on context. So let's take a look at the main premises. I have re-worded and paraphrased certain parts of it, but for the sake of this I am enclosing them in quotes. These are not literal quotes so much as quotes of the logic so to speak.

#1: "difference": (in his "on what's the difference" phrase) can be defined as the difference between a previous incarnation and the current version. This is in response to your question about whether the current incarnation "feels" like GnR.

#2: "how and in what ways former members are using the association": What he's implying here is that the manner in which certain former members have used the association to the band name has affected your perception of what is guns n roses.

#3: "the true circumstances regarding why former gunners moved on from the band and name": Again he's making reference to some commonly held misconceptions that are out there. Some former gunners have portrayed their departure inconsistently, or in Axl's view: have portrayed their exits in misleading ways, leading him to directly allude to the "true circumstances" for certain members' departures. Again, he's saying that your perception of what Guns n Roses is is based heavily off of a delusion that he kicked everyone out.

#4: "would or could affect the decision by this lineup and myself to continue on with the name": They use the name because to them it is Guns. This simultaneously tells you that yes it is definitely feels like Guns to the members and that's why they continue to use it. Because Guns is an evolving thing. It encompasses more than just one lineup or album. He's saying that no matter what you've heard or what you think, it's not going to affect his decision to carry on with the name and the band.

[star]

3 years later (has it been that long?) I still don't fully understand

I think he's saying that GnR was always an evolving thing and the old members left because they didn't fit with GnR and where it was going.

In other words, the current lineup feels like GnR, whereas the older lineup wouldn't feel like GnR at this point.

..which is kinda dumb-ass, as everyone one knows that there was only ever one GN'R, and the current Axl + Hired hands is simply an attempt to cover the music live for the sake of the fans and Axl's ego.

What does it say on the top there? It doesn't look like "Axl + Hired hands". It looks like there's a Guns N' Roses up there to me.

While we're at it, what did it say on Chinese Democracy?

Nope, no "Axl + Hired hands" there either.

Don't feed the

They're fat as fuck and still hungry!!

Axl's lawyer talk strategy is simple: Talk around it, avoid lawsuits, never expose your opinion clearly and if you can't answer it, answer something else.

Which why Axl don't do interview these days, as they would be pointless

..is this the current poster ? - couldn't they have come up with something new for the new tour

Edited September 17, 2011 by star

[Apollo]

3 years later (has it been that long?) I still don't fully understand

I think he's saying that GnR was always an evolving thing and the old members left because they didn't fit with GnR and where it was going.

In other words, the current lineup feels like GnR, whereas the older lineup wouldn't feel like GnR at this point.

..which is kinda dumb-ass, as everyone one knows that there was only ever one GN'R, and the current Axl + Hired hands is simply an attempt to cover the music live for the sake of the fans and Axl's ego.

What does it say on the top there? It doesn't look like "Axl + Hired hands". It looks like there's a Guns N' Roses up there to me.

While we're at it, what did it say on Chinese Democracy?

Nope, no "Axl + Hired hands" there either.

Don't feed the

They're fat as fuck and still hungry!!

Axl's lawyer talk strategy is simple: Talk around it, avoid lawsuits, never expose your opinion clearly and if you can't answer it, answer something else.

Which why Axl don't do interview these days, as they would be pointless

..is this the current poster ? - couldn't they have come up with something new for the new tour

Just read your last three posts and every single one is a negative comment. If u don't like what Axl and the band is doing, why follow them? Why spend time on a forum of a band you don't like?

[The Glow Inc.]

I think his answer means :

NuGnR feels like GnR when the former band members STFU about GnR for a long enough time, allowing us to forget about them and what once was for a moment.

[wasted]

I think so. It's taken for granted that if it didn't feel like GNR he wouldn't continue.

I don't feel like using gimp or ms paint right now, so let's break it down. If your quote is accurate, he never gives the other half of the "either or" structure he initiates early on. So we must extract the meaning based on context. So let's take a look at the main premises. I have re-worded and paraphrased certain parts of it, but for the sake of this I am enclosing them in quotes. These are not literal quotes so much as quotes of the logic so to speak.

#1: "difference": (in his "on what's the difference" phrase) can be defined as the difference between a previous incarnation and the current version. This is in response to your question about whether the current incarnation "feels" like GnR.

#2: "how and in what ways former members are using the association": What he's implying here is that the manner in which certain former members have used the association to the band name has affected your perception of what is guns n roses.

#3: "the true circumstances regarding why former gunners moved on from the band and name": Again he's making reference to some commonly held misconceptions that are out there. Some former gunners have portrayed their departure inconsistently, or in Axl's view: have portrayed their exits in misleading ways, leading him to directly allude to the "true circumstances" for certain members' departures. Again, he's saying that your perception of what Guns n Roses is is based heavily off of a delusion that he kicked everyone out.

#4: "would or could affect the decision by this lineup and myself to continue on with the name": They use the name because to them it is Guns. This simultaneously tells you that yes it is definitely feels like Guns to the members and that's why they continue to use it. Because Guns is an evolving thing. It encompasses more than just one lineup or album. He's saying that no matter what you've heard or what you think, it's not going to affect his decision to carry on with the name and the band.

[Thelonious]

Axl: On the what's the difference... I think I get what you're asking... I feel it depends on how and in what ways either the formers members are using the association and what the true circumstances regarding why they moved on from both the band and the name that would or could affect the decision to continue on with the name by in this case this lineup and or myself.

I'm sorry, but it had to be done.

My interpretation: On the what's the difference... I think I get what you're asking... I feel it depends on how, and in what ways, either the formers members are using the association, and what the true circumstances, regarding why they moved on, from both the band. and the name that would, or could, affect the decision to continue on with the name-- by in this case, this lineup, and, or, myself.

One must remember that he dropped out of high school, and that, his mastery of grammar... isn't up to par???

We have many people's words against one. No one backs up Axl's side at all.

This.

Not really a hard sentence to logically diagram. Are you telling me no one in this thread had to take a logic/philosophy 101 class?

Yes, I am familiar with logic(which by the way, isn't a 101 level class in most universities; it is probably a sophomore level, or at least upper 100s), and with philosophy. And, what Rose wrote is tenuous, fragmented, and rambling.

Too, probably better for an English major to map what he wrote... just sayin'. :wink:

Edited September 17, 2011 by Thelonious

[wasted]

Anyway it feels the same.

[sailaway]

i think he's saying that the former members have portrayed the AFD lineup as the "real" GNR - which is a different thing than GNR really is. And so, whether or not the band feels like GNR depends on what you think GNR is.

It's not enigmatically complicated imo

[gnrfan2007]

When Axl says: "I think I get what you're asking..."

Axl interpreted the question as: "why did Axl choose to continue using the name GnR instead of starting over with a new band name ..."

Axl's answer in short can be summarized as: GnR never ended ... the old guys left on their own accord ... it's not my fault they chose to walk away from GnR

Why should Axl end GnR, when he never wanted the old guys to leave in the first place?

Slash and Duff left thinking they could force Axl's hand. They thought Axl was nothing without them.

Slash and Duff must have believed that Axl would eventually come back begging to them, thus, ceasing all creative control to Slash and Duff.

But Axl has proven them all wrong with the success of CD and the tours. GnR doesn't need Slash and Duff! Because as CD proves, the creative soul and energy of GnR has always come from Axl.

In other words, why should Axl not use the name GnR?

[sailaway]

Axl: On the what's the difference... I think I get what you're asking... I feel it depends on how and in what ways either the formers members are using the association and what the true circumstances regarding why they moved on from both the band and the name that would or could affect the decision to continue on with the name by in this case this lineup and or myself.

I'm sorry, but it had to be done.

My interpretation: On the what's the difference... I think I get what you're asking... I feel it depends on how, and in what ways, either the formers members are using the association, and what the true circumstances, regarding why they moved on, from both the band. and the name that would, or could, affect the decision to continue on with the name-- by in this case, this lineup, and, or, myself.

One must remember that he dropped out of high school, and that, his mastery of grammar... isn't up to par???

We have many people's words against one. No one backs up Axl's side at all.

This.

Not really a hard sentence to logically diagram. Are you telling me no one in this thread had to take a logic/philosophy 101 class?

Yes, I am familiar with logic(which by the way, isn't a 101 level class in most universities; it is probably a sophomore level, or at least upper 100s), and with philosophy. And, what Rose wrote is tenuous, fragmented, and rambling.

Too, probably better for an English major to map what he wrote... just sayin'. :wink:

It wasn't that complicated to understand,and I've seen some stupid motherfuckers packing diplomas of varying sorts.I happen to think he has a very good grasp on the English language and is adept at being a wordsmith,as well as being damn entertaining at times.