What if Axl Died in 1993 or 1994

[Desperado]

Do you think Axl's legacy would be viewed differently if his life tragically ended in his prime ?

Hendrix, Joplin, Morrison, Cobain, etc. who died at the peak of their career were all elevated to rock god status.

Axl was on top of the world in the early 90's and he's done nothing but stumble over himself since........ tarnishing his legacy in the process.

You stupid fuckers...Axl did die...its in the Don't Cry video....Hes sitting next to his grave stone in a graveyard .....this guy we call "axl" is in fact another replicant hired by William Bailey esq and the original band (who simply cant work with this fellow)...the hatred and animosity is all staged for our benefit to keep us interested in GNR ...that's why he doesn't sound the same as street urchin Axl 88-93 and it took so long to get this show and new music on the road....

mystery solved....explains why he showed up in Rock in Rio pounds heavier and looking older than 93 as well.

the Don't Cry video was made 91.... sooooooo think of something new

[blake-a-mania]

I have had this discussion with people before.

Thinking about Cobain first off, I honestly believe his legacy only exists because of a young death, people didn't get to see the extent that his addictions would take him to, and so in the minds of fans and the general consensus he will always be that "genius" who made Smells Like Teen Spirit.

Although I think the worst thing about Cobains death is that in reality it was a tragedy brought on on mental illness, fear and drug addiction that caused a man to take his own life, regardless of what you think of Cobain as a musician/songwriter; however, this entire notion gets romanticized by Nirvana fans preaching about how Kurt was a true musician refusing to sell out and that his death was standing up against the record labels trying to prostitute him out.

Do these people not see the irony here? that they themselves are bastardising his life by tacking this Martyr badge to his death?

But this is what dying young does to a legacy isn't it?

James Dean could easily have been Brando in the later years and Brando would be the eternally young handsome guy had he gone early

Marilyn Monroe could easily be Joan Collins, were she still alive.

It's like it says in Batman The Dark Knight,

You die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain

[tange]

i'll put it this way when its all said and done. Guns will be remembered as being as important/influential to the next gen of musicians as Nirvana, if not more.

where the hell was grunge music in 1998. all i remember hearing was Nu-Metal and some Peral Jam albums that no longer sounded like grunge.

[AxlIsGod.]

Doesn't matter if he is alive or dead,CD for me sucks and will always suck.

The fuck Has Your opinion On CD got to do with axl being alive? Just because You dont like CD it doesnt matter if axl is alive or not?

Oh Dear... Some major idiocy on this board.

[Sixx]

If Axl had died we would have got new material quicker than we did.........

[Silent Jay]

Scott Weiland and Myles Kennedy would be the new GNR's singers

[KiraMPD]

Scott Weiland and Myles Kennedy would be the new GNR's singers

...that's a horrible thought...

As far as the topic goes, I'd like to refference the Axl quote in my sig. The man would be a legend, he's already a living legend right now. The only difference is that he might have been remembered for slightly different reasons...

[CAFC Nick]

There is no question in my mind that he would've gone down in history and remembered in the same breath as the greats - Hendrix, Bonham, Morrison etc.

[Pegasus]

There is no question in my mind that he would've gone down in history and remembered in the same breath as the greats - Hendrix, Bonham, Morrison etc.

Yeah, agreed. I think his legacy would have been much bigger than those names. Guns were massive in the early 90's.

Of course slash would of hired a new singer and cash grabbed for eternity, its his nature

[volcano62]

Doesn't matter if he is alive or dead,CD for me sucks and will always suck.

The fuck Has Your opinion On CD got to do with axl being alive? Just because You dont like CD it doesnt matter if axl is alive or not?

Oh Dear... Some major idiocy on this board.

Lot of fuckin' attention seeking, bitter-ex fan idiots around here thats why.

Anyway...WORST.TOPIC.EVER.

Of course slash would of hired a new singer and cash grabbed for eternity, its his nature

So sad but very true.

[The_Universal_Sigh]

There is no question in my mind that he would've gone down in history and remembered in the same breath as the greats - Hendrix, Bonham, Morrison etc.

Yeah, agreed. I think his legacy would have been much bigger than those names. Guns were massive in the early 90's.

Of course slash would of hired a new singer and cash grabbed for eternity, its his nature

He wouldn't call it guns n roses though. At least he's not that self indulgent.

I could see him doing lots and lots of tribute shit though.

[PirateChick]

Anyway...WORST.TOPIC.EVER.

+ 1, what is going we are getting lots of stupid pointless threads in the news section lately

[Tyson]

If Axl had tragically passed away in 1993, he would be mythologized in the same manner as Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison. His legend would resonate in a manner that begets universal praise and awe.

[RidzGnr]

we wpuld of missed out on CD..and that wuld be verybfucking sad

[Vincent Vega]

Was Axl ever really at the same sort of "legend" status as Morrison, Joplin, Hendrix, Cobain, etc were? Even in 1991 or 1992? I don't think he was ever hailed as the "Spokesman of his generation" the way the others were, and he didn't innovative music in any major way like Hendrix did.

GN'R aren't, to the public, some timeless band in the way Nirvana or The Doors or The Beatles were...Most people lump them together with the rest of the "80s bands" today...That whole 80s set of cheese and glam. Even though that's not what GN'R was, that's what people perceive them as--an "80s band". While the majority of The Doors' career was in the 60s, they aren't a "60s band", and the '90s doesn't have all the "OMG CHEESY" baggage attached to it that the 80s does...If we're being morbid, I think if Axl died suddenly in 1997/1998--Just before his "comeback"--Then he would've been legendary. Mysterious, reclusive star who the public became more and more interested in as sort of a legend like bigfoot, dying suddenly when he was about to reconquer the world? That would've put him up there with Morrison etc...

The thing with Morrison, Cobain, Hendrix, etc is that they died at points in their career where they were on the upswing again...So people celebrate them in death because it's like..."If they had lived, what would they have gone on to do?"

While I love GN'R, I don't view them as a culturally significant force. I think, to be honest, they were just a fad. Kinda like the Limp Bizkit of the late 80s/early 90s (I'm NOT putting them down and suggesting that Bizkit and Guns are equally talented, I'm talking in terms of their impact/duration of popularity/nature of it).

GN'R was already sort of passe with the public by the time the UYI ended. Their music as it was was NEVER revolutionary. GN'R didn't reinvent the wheel in any way like Morrison or Hendrix did. They were pure and simple an amped up throwback to 70s rock...Sort of like all the best and worst of bands like Aerosmith, the Stones, Led Zeppelin etc revisited with a punk edge. It seemed new, edgy and fresh in comparison to all the corporate cock rock crap of the late 80s, and Axl's act as the "angry young man" kept people interested for a while...But between the long wait for the UYIs and his increasing antics (late show starts, etc) I think the public were already sort of fed up with his shit by '92, '93.

And GN'R and Axl became more and more self indulgent and excessive, it just gave ammo to groups like Nirvana, Soundgarden, the other Grunge bands: GN'R became the new corporate rock band to be taken off the throne, and in the ultra politically correct and sensitive 1990s, their brand of misogyny, sexism, homophobia, etc was seen as a relic of the past. People like Cobain used those things against GN'R and made GN'R look like relics or the last gasp of a bygone era...Not a fresh group in touch with "THE 90s". Making all those videos, GN'R all dressing in costumes in the 90s, the grandiosity of it all just wasn't wanted in the 90s, it made GN'R seem like a cartoon, a bloated 80s band...GN'R were going into more and more excess while everyone else just wanted to be down to earth and not showy. GN'R were the epitome of a band of "rock stars" in an age where the public wanted the "anti-rock star"

Do either of these lineups look like a band that would fit in the '90s? The first one looks like a typical 80s sunset strip band, the second like a pompous band all dressed in costumes.

Whereas you look at these guys, it's unpretentious in image, they look like regular dudes who just happen to be famous:

Edited June 8, 2012 by Indigo Miser

[volcano62]

we wpuld of missed out on CD..and that wuld be verybfucking sad

Indeed.

[dalsh327]

this is a horrible topic, but to answer the question, Axl would have reached legendary proportions maybe only Jim Morrison have achieved as far as Rock Idols who died to early, not many people were as big as Axl and Jim Morrison were, I would say Guns N Roses in their hey day were a much more popular band then the Doors ever were

You're talking about completely different eras, most of the time The Doors played live, they didn't have the big booming sound system the Stones had in '69, so they played theaters. But when it comes to The Doors, they had one of the biggest hits of the year, and going on Ed Sullivan then meant everyone in America with a TV set watched you.

The Doors did lose some popularity, but the Miami incident caused a lot of canceled shows.

Tupac never played anything bigger than the House of Blues, yet his legacy's huge.

[dalsh327]

Was Axl ever really at the same sort of "legend" status as Morrison, Joplin, Hendrix, Cobain, etc were? Even in 1991 or 1992? I don't think he was ever hailed as the "Spokesman of his generation" the way the others were, and he didn't innovative music in any major way like Hendrix did.

GN'R aren't, to the public, some timeless band in the way Nirvana or The Doors or The Beatles were...Most people lump them together with the rest of the "80s bands" today...That whole 80s set of cheese and glam. Even though that's not what GN'R was, that's what people perceive them as--an "80s band". While the majority of The Doors' career was in the 60s, they aren't a "60s band", and the '90s doesn't have all the "OMG CHEESY" baggage attached to it that the 80s does...If we're being morbid, I think if Axl died suddenly in 1997/1998--Just before his "comeback"--Then he would've been legendary. Mysterious, reclusive star who the public became more and more interested in as sort of a legend like bigfoot, dying suddenly when he was about to reconquer the world? That would've put him up there with Morrison etc...

The thing with Morrison, Cobain, Hendrix, etc is that they died at points in their career where they were on the upswing again...So people celebrate them in death because it's like..."If they had lived, what would they have gone on to do?"

While I love GN'R, I don't view them as a culturally significant force. I think, to be honest, they were just a fad. Kinda like the Limp Bizkit of the late 80s/early 90s (I'm NOT putting them down and suggesting that Bizkit and Guns are equally talented, I'm talking in terms of their impact/duration of popularity/nature of it).

GN'R was already sort of passe with the public by the time the UYI ended. Their music as it was was NEVER revolutionary. GN'R didn't reinvent the wheel in any way like Morrison or Hendrix did. They were pure and simple an amped up throwback to 70s rock...Sort of like all the best and worst of bands like Aerosmith, the Stones, Led Zeppelin etc revisited with a punk edge. It seemed new, edgy and fresh in comparison to all the corporate cock rock crap of the late 80s, and Axl's act as the "angry young man" kept people interested for a while...But between the long wait for the UYIs and his increasing antics (late show starts, etc) I think the public were already sort of fed up with his shit by '92, '93.

And GN'R and Axl became more and more self indulgent and excessive, it just gave ammo to groups like Nirvana, Soundgarden, the other Grunge bands: GN'R became the new corporate rock band to be taken off the throne, and in the ultra politically correct and sensitive 1990s, their brand of misogyny, sexism, homophobia, etc was seen as a relic of the past. People like Cobain used those things against GN'R and made GN'R look like relics or the last gasp of a bygone era...Not a fresh group in touch with "THE 90s". Making all those videos, GN'R all dressing in costumes in the 90s, the grandiosity of it all just wasn't wanted in the 90s, it made GN'R seem like a cartoon, a bloated 80s band...GN'R were going into more and more excess while everyone else just wanted to be down to earth and not showy. GN'R were the epitome of a band of "rock stars" in an age where the public wanted the "anti-rock star"

Do either of these lineups look like a band that would fit in the '90s? The first one looks like a typical 80s sunset strip band, the second like a pompous band all dressed in costumes.

Whereas you look at these guys, it's unpretentious in image, they look like regular dudes who just happen to be famous:

To me an upswing means a resurgence in popularity. I don't think that applied to The Doors or Hendrix in '70, they had the hits, but some people lost interest in them. The Doors were dealing with having shows canceled due to what happened in Miami, but they still had "Touch Me" as a hit at the time, and "Roadhouse Blues". Nirvana were headlining their first big tour and Cobain completely lost it, and they hadn't even gotten around to making "All Apologies".

[SONOFABITCH]

If Axl died in 93 there would be no new GNR fans SOB would be so sad.

[bran]

if axl would have died in 1991 right after the UYI albums came out i think he would have been on par of cobain in type of dead idol worshipping. i think its just that you are more idolized if you die young than living to an old age. if cobain lived to be 60 or 70 he wouldnt be as worshipped but dying young has benefits if your famous

[Vincent Vega]

Was Axl ever really at the same sort of "legend" status as Morrison, Joplin, Hendrix, Cobain, etc were? Even in 1991 or 1992? I don't think he was ever hailed as the "Spokesman of his generation" the way the others were, and he didn't innovative music in any major way like Hendrix did.

GN'R aren't, to the public, some timeless band in the way Nirvana or The Doors or The Beatles were...Most people lump them together with the rest of the "80s bands" today...That whole 80s set of cheese and glam. Even though that's not what GN'R was, that's what people perceive them as--an "80s band". While the majority of The Doors' career was in the 60s, they aren't a "60s band", and the '90s doesn't have all the "OMG CHEESY" baggage attached to it that the 80s does...If we're being morbid, I think if Axl died suddenly in 1997/1998--Just before his "comeback"--Then he would've been legendary. Mysterious, reclusive star who the public became more and more interested in as sort of a legend like bigfoot, dying suddenly when he was about to reconquer the world? That would've put him up there with Morrison etc...

The thing with Morrison, Cobain, Hendrix, etc is that they died at points in their career where they were on the upswing again...So people celebrate them in death because it's like..."If they had lived, what would they have gone on to do?"

While I love GN'R, I don't view them as a culturally significant force. I think, to be honest, they were just a fad. Kinda like the Limp Bizkit of the late 80s/early 90s (I'm NOT putting them down and suggesting that Bizkit and Guns are equally talented, I'm talking in terms of their impact/duration of popularity/nature of it).

GN'R was already sort of passe with the public by the time the UYI ended. Their music as it was was NEVER revolutionary. GN'R didn't reinvent the wheel in any way like Morrison or Hendrix did. They were pure and simple an amped up throwback to 70s rock...Sort of like all the best and worst of bands like Aerosmith, the Stones, Led Zeppelin etc revisited with a punk edge. It seemed new, edgy and fresh in comparison to all the corporate cock rock crap of the late 80s, and Axl's act as the "angry young man" kept people interested for a while...But between the long wait for the UYIs and his increasing antics (late show starts, etc) I think the public were already sort of fed up with his shit by '92, '93.

And GN'R and Axl became more and more self indulgent and excessive, it just gave ammo to groups like Nirvana, Soundgarden, the other Grunge bands: GN'R became the new corporate rock band to be taken off the throne, and in the ultra politically correct and sensitive 1990s, their brand of misogyny, sexism, homophobia, etc was seen as a relic of the past. People like Cobain used those things against GN'R and made GN'R look like relics or the last gasp of a bygone era...Not a fresh group in touch with "THE 90s". Making all those videos, GN'R all dressing in costumes in the 90s, the grandiosity of it all just wasn't wanted in the 90s, it made GN'R seem like a cartoon, a bloated 80s band...GN'R were going into more and more excess while everyone else just wanted to be down to earth and not showy. GN'R were the epitome of a band of "rock stars" in an age where the public wanted the "anti-rock star"

Do either of these lineups look like a band that would fit in the '90s? The first one looks like a typical 80s sunset strip band, the second like a pompous band all dressed in costumes.

Whereas you look at these guys, it's unpretentious in image, they look like regular dudes who just happen to be famous:

To me an upswing means a resurgence in popularity. I don't think that applied to The Doors or Hendrix in '70, they had the hits, but some people lost interest in them. The Doors were dealing with having shows canceled due to what happened in Miami, but they still had "Touch Me" as a hit at the time, and "Roadhouse Blues". Nirvana were headlining their first big tour and Cobain completely lost it, and they hadn't even gotten around to making "All Apologies".

The Doors WERE an upswing in 1970 and 1971. Morrison Hotel was considered a comeback album and LA Woman had several successful singles, both were hit records and were seen as a return to form after The Soft Parade. And they toured pretty much through all of 1970. The only cancelled concerts due to Miami happened in 1969 immediately after the incident.

[Original]

What if Slash had died? Would Axl (besides not being too upset) have released CD sooner? Would he have rocked all throughout the '93-2000 era since he wouldn't have had to focus so much energy on Slash?

[uzi your illusion]

I wonder if Slash regrets wearing that vest.

[tomazrui]

Doesn't matter if he is alive or dead,CD for me sucks and will always suck.

The fuck Has Your opinion On CD got to do with axl being alive? Just because You dont like CD it doesnt matter if axl is alive or not?

Oh Dear... Some major idiocy on this board.

LOL, thats true, and it's getting worse.

[Cosmo]

Doesn't matter if he is alive or dead,CD for me sucks and will always suck.

Idiot post

Edited June 9, 2012 by The Only Cosmonaut