saber_ Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) Do you think fans would react differently if Axl didn't own the name Guns n Roses? If so, how would people treat him differently? If not, why wouldn't people treat him differently? Is his ownership of the name the true root cause of some fans' melodramatic emotional trauma? If Axl didn't own the name, would his refusal to do certain things carry as much meaning for people?edit: rephrased title Edited April 13, 2012 by Popcorn's Timbre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbacca Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 People wouldn't be able to call him a dictator.Perhaps, they wouldn't consider Axl to be the "sole cause" of the break up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saber_ Posted April 13, 2012 Author Share Posted April 13, 2012 Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowmass Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Me personally- yep. This ain't GnR...it's Axl solo. Look at Slash or Izzy or Duff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desperado Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I think that if the new band wouldn't be called GN'R people wouldn't hate them like they do now........ witch also is really stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saber_ Posted April 13, 2012 Author Share Posted April 13, 2012 Me personally- yep. This ain't GnR...it's Axl solo. Look at Slash or Izzy or Duff.But, if you already regard it as Axl's solo project, then does that mean you also still regard Slash as owning a piece of the band's name in the collective consciousness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITW 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) I think he could have had an Ozzy type solo career if he'd ditched the GNR name and actually put out albums. Edited April 13, 2012 by ITW 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowmass Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Me personally- yep. This ain't GnR...it's Axl solo. Look at Slash or Izzy or Duff.But, if you already regard it as Axl's solo project, then does that mean you also still regard Slash as owning a piece of the band's name in the collective consciousness?The original 5 should own a 5th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mao5 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Do you think fans would react differently if Axl didn't own the name Guns n Roses? If so, how would people treat him differently? If not, why wouldn't people treat him differently? Absolutely. If Axl didn't use the GNR name people would treat him more kindly.If McCartney started a tour in 2012 under The Beatles name he would get a lot of shit too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saber_ Posted April 13, 2012 Author Share Posted April 13, 2012 Me personally- yep. This ain't GnR...it's Axl solo. Look at Slash or Izzy or Duff.But, if you already regard it as Axl's solo project, then does that mean you also still regard Slash as owning a piece of the band's name in the collective consciousness?The original 5 should own a 5th.But it's just a name! It may be cliche-sounding, but- each ex gunner carries a piece of the GnR sound and spirit with them. That spirit emanates from them; and you can hear it when they play. When you watch an ex gunner play an AFD or UYI song, it is in the music itself which you can hear the spirit of the band you remembered. The same goes for Axl. The only difference is a little piece of paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desperado Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) Do you think fans would react differently if Axl didn't own the name Guns n Roses? If so, how would people treat him differently? If not, why wouldn't people treat him differently? Absolutely. If Axl didn't use the GNR name people would treat him more kindly.If McCartney started a tour in 2012 under The Beatles name he would get a lot of shit too. well that isn't the same thing now is it? The Beatles broke up, GN'R never did. First they kicked out Steven and got Matt and then Izzy left and was replaced by Gilby who was later replaced by Tobias. Slash left and got replaced and so on and so on.... just like Deep Purple and Black Sabbath. Edited April 13, 2012 by Desperado Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bran Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Do you think fans would react differently if Axl didn't own the name Guns n Roses? If so, how would people treat him differently? If not, why wouldn't people treat him differently? Absolutely. If Axl didn't use the GNR name people would treat him more kindly.If McCartney started a tour in 2012 under The Beatles name he would get a lot of shit too. well that isn't the same thing now is it? The Beatles broke up, GN'R never did. First they kicked out Steven and got Matt and then Izzy left and was replaced by Gilby who was later replaced by Tobias. Slash left and got replaced and so on and so on.... just like Deep Purple and Black Sabbath.yeah gnr never said we are done and the members go their separate ways. someone quit or was fired someone was replaced and it kept going, same with sabbath ozzy gets booted dio joins, bill ward quits, vinnie comes in, they never break up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I just want to hear Axl's voice on music.I don't really care that much about who is behind him or what the name of the band is.I just want to hear him sing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maynard Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 i guess the lack of another member with any authority is the real problem. having a name doesn't make it a band. i guess if izzy or duff wore still around there wouldn't be so much negativity. there would be that "band" feeling. these guys might have an opinion on the music but that's it. they can't decide what to do with it when it's done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mao5 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 well that isn't the same thing now is it? The Beatles broke up, GN'R never did. Oh please GNR broke up and then Axl started a new band with the same name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bran Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 well that isn't the same thing now is it? The Beatles broke up, GN'R never did. Oh please GNR broke up and then Axl started a new band with the same namewrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packersnroses Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Apparently GNR dying in the 90s is better than having a GNR today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maynard Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Apparently GNR dying in the 90s is better than having a GNR today.what exaclty is gnr today in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Broue Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Do you think fans would treat Axl differently if he didn't own the name of the band?Yes. I think most of the people didn't care him anymore. Unless if he releases several solo albums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packersnroses Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Apparently GNR dying in the 90s is better than having a GNR today.what exaclty is gnr today in your opinion?Axl, Ron, DJ.....Oh, no Slash? Fuck that. GNR should've died in '96. I don't care how much hard work Axl has put into keeping GNR alive without the people who ruined his life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desperado Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 well that isn't the same thing now is it? The Beatles broke up, GN'R never did. Oh please GNR broke up and then Axl started a new band with the same namewelcome to our universe! In our lifetime we started with making stuff up because we didn't know any better and because of that people has later been very mad. Jews were mad at Christians, Christans has been mad att Jews and the northern gods. Later a little german catholic was mad at the jews, and then there was some war..... oh and GN'R never broke up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flayer Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 well that isn't the same thing now is it? The Beatles broke up, GN'R never did. Oh please GNR broke up and then Axl started a new band with the same namewrong...Come on, it's pretty much true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desperado Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 well that isn't the same thing now is it? The Beatles broke up, GN'R never did. Oh please GNR broke up and then Axl started a new band with the same namewrong...Come on, it's pretty much true.......how is something true when it's wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Broue Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 well that isn't the same thing now is it? The Beatles broke up, GN'R never did. Oh please GNR broke up and then Axl started a new band with the same namewelcome to our universe! In our lifetime we started with making stuff up because we didn't know any better and because of that people has later been very mad. Jews were mad at Christians, Christans has been mad att Jews and the northern gods. Later a little german catholic was mad at the jews, and then there was some war..... oh and GN'R never broke upthis is the most pointless post on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flayer Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 well that isn't the same thing now is it? The Beatles broke up, GN'R never did. Oh please GNR broke up and then Axl started a new band with the same namewelcome to our universe! In our lifetime we started with making stuff up because we didn't know any better and because of that people has later been very mad. Jews were mad at Christians, Christans has been mad att Jews and the northern gods. Later a little german catholic was mad at the jews, and then there was some war..... oh and GN'R never broke upAre you high? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts