Do you think Axl should have released CD as a solo album?

[Cosmo]

I just think everyone would be better off if Axl hadn't used the GnR name for CD: Even and especially Axl.

Guns N' Roses is one of the most successful bands in the world right now and Axl has 100% ownership of the band. Please explain how Axl would be better off had he gone solo. Thanks.

Chinese Democracy is, IMO, an amazing album from start to finish. IMO, no album in the 2000's even came close to it. Then why the hell wasn't it a big success? Here's some reasons why:

• People were against Axl taking control over GnR and protested against having GnR without the old members, especially Slash. They didn't want to like it.
  
• The record label, the music industry as a whole were against it. Even if they wanted CD to sell, they wanted a reunion even more. There's one of the reasons for the huge delay.
  
• Axl had a huge responsibility of making an AMAZING album, there's another reason for the huge delay.... and we know it didn't really help GnR.
  

Now what if Axl had dropped the GnR name?

• Less pressure. Probably could've released it by 2002. There was a lot more interest in GnR back then.
  
• Label wouldn't work against it.
  
• People wouldn't think Axl hijacked GnR. It'd just be an Axl album, or an album by a new band. There wouldn't be a prejudice against it.
  
• Axl would STILL have 100% of the rights to the GnR name.
  
• Sounds different? Has different members? Oh... that's great! So does VR!
  

It's not all about money. I doubt the money difference is worth Axl being literally hated by at least half of his hardcore fans, the media, the labels, etc... I doubt it's worth the headache it must have been to release the damn album. The music industry is also about POLITICS.

Edited June 9, 2012 by The Only Cosmonaut

[Rustycage]

Your opinion is your opinion just like mine is my opinion. You can keep lying about being in the industry to make it seem more valid but it doesn't make it so.

Tell me;What is the difference between a solo artist and the current state of GNR? Solo artist has final say of the direction of the music. So does Axl. Solo artists have an ever changing line up. So does Axl.

I'll cut this short and help you with the answer. The only difference is the name. Without the GNR name, what would make this unlike a solo artist. Don't distract. What difference is there? None.

And btw, I follow more bands than you think. From the 50's on. A lot of which stayed independent. A lot of which depended on unity as a band. Integrity. It's possible to have fun creating and playing music without turning the band into a dictatorship business With Axl Trump running the show.

[AxlRose14]

yes, since CD is an Axl Rose solo album. Axl has tried to rewrite history and make it appear as though he alone was GNR, but that's just not how it was, and that's clear when you compare AFD/Lies/UYI to CD.

You couldn't be any further from the truth. All 3 records sound different, but why would they ever sound the same? Bands change, the sound of a band changes..even if the original lineup stayed together, they'd sound different today in comparison to 1987. That's just a fact.

Velvet Revolver sounds nothing like GNR...so it really is irrelevant what you're saying

[saber_]

It's not an "Axl Rose band" record because Bucket and Finck were given a ton of creative control.

The Slash diehards are bitter about this since Bucket is lightyears beyond Slash in terms of creativity and talent. Hey I dig Slash's contributions to GnR as much as anyone (truly), his style helped define the sound of the band. And so too did Bucket's contributions help define the sound of the band. So you can call it an Axl Rose record to appease your insatiable desire to cupcake Axl, but in the end, it's GnR and there's nothing you can do about it. *Dexter smile*

[AxlRose14]

Your opinion is your opinion just like mine is my opinion. You can keep lying about being in the industry to make it seem more valid but it doesn't make it so.

Tell me;What is the difference between a solo artist and the current state of GNR? Solo artist has final say of the direction of the music. So does Axl. Solo artists have an ever changing line up. So does Axl.

I'll cut this short and help you with the answer. The only difference is the name. Without the GNR name, what would make this unlike a solo artist. Don't distract. What difference is there? None.

And btw, I follow more bands than you think. From the 50's on. A lot of which stayed independent. A lot of which depended on unity as a band. Integrity. It's possible to have fun creating and playing music without turning the band into a dictatorship business With Axl Trump running the show.

Wow you can talk..ok then genious, why would Slash, Izzy and Duff sell the rights to Axl??

Fact is they didn't care about Axl or the band. Each guy was a selfish prick, and being intoxicated while signing over the rights is no excuse. If they had a problem with it, it should have been addressed back then. Slash has no excuse to sueing Axl, at all. Or izzy, or duff. They didn't have a gun to the back of their heads, all 3 are idiots and knew what they were doing.

[Rustycage]

It's not an "Axl Rose band" record because Bucket and Finck were given a ton of creative control.

Yea, clearly so much so that one would go back to being a solo artist and the other went back to one of the most notable control freaks, Trent Reznor. You fall for the lip service.

Your opinion is your opinion just like mine is my opinion. You can keep lying about being in the industry to make it seem more valid but it doesn't make it so.

Tell me;What is the difference between a solo artist and the current state of GNR? Solo artist has final say of the direction of the music. So does Axl. Solo artists have an ever changing line up. So does Axl.

I'll cut this short and help you with the answer. The only difference is the name. Without the GNR name, what would make this unlike a solo artist. Don't distract. What difference is there? None.

And btw, I follow more bands than you think. From the 50's on. A lot of which stayed independent. A lot of which depended on unity as a band. Integrity. It's possible to have fun creating and playing music without turning the band into a dictatorship business With Axl Trump running the show.

Wow you can talk..ok then genious, why would Slash, Izzy and Duff sell the rights to Axl??

Fact is they didn't care about Axl or the band. Each guy was a selfish prick, and being intoxicated while signing over the rights is no excuse. If they had a problem with it, it should have been addressed back then. Slash has no excuse to sueing Axl, at all. Or izzy, or duff. They didn't have a gun to the back of their heads, all 3 are idiots and knew what they were doing.

What's the difference between GNR today and a solo artist? Can you answer that?

[classicrawker]

I just think everyone would be better off if Axl hadn't used the GnR name for CD: Even and especially Axl.

Guns N' Roses is one of the most successful bands in the world right now and Axl has 100% ownership of the band. Please explain how Axl would be better off had he gone solo. Thanks.

Chinese Democracy is, IMO, an amazing album from start to finish. IMO, no album in the 2000's even came close to it. Then why the hell wasn't it a big success? Here's some reasons why:

• People were against Axl taking control over GnR and protested against having GnR without the old members, especially Slash. They didn't want to like it.
  
• The record label, the music industry as a whole were against it. Even if they wanted CD to sell, they wanted a reunion even more. There's one of the reasons for the huge delay.
  
• Axl had a huge responsibility of making an AMAZING album, there's another reason for the huge delay.... and we know it didn't really help GnR.
  

Now what if Axl had dropped the GnR name?

• Less pressure. Probably could've released it by 2002. There was a lot more interest in GnR back then.
  
• Label wouldn't work against it.
  
• People wouldn't think Axl hijacked GnR. It'd just be an Axl album, or an album by a new band. There wouldn't be a prejudice against it.
  
• Axl would STILL have 100% of the rights to the GnR name.
  
• Sounds different? Has different members? Oh... that's great! So does VR!
  

It's not all about money. I doubt the money difference is worth Axl being literally hated by at least half of his hardcore fans, the media, the labels, etc... I doubt it's worth the headache it must have been to release the damn album. The music industry is also about POLITICS.

Maybe ChiDem just wasn't that good? ever consider that?

[Rustycage]

I just think everyone would be better off if Axl hadn't used the GnR name for CD: Even and especially Axl.

Guns N' Roses is one of the most successful bands in the world right now and Axl has 100% ownership of the band. Please explain how Axl would be better off had he gone solo. Thanks.

Chinese Democracy is, IMO, an amazing album from start to finish. IMO, no album in the 2000's even came close to it. Then why the hell wasn't it a big success? Here's some reasons why:

• People were against Axl taking control over GnR and protested against having GnR without the old members, especially Slash. They didn't want to like it.
  
• The record label, the music industry as a whole were against it. Even if they wanted CD to sell, they wanted a reunion even more. There's one of the reasons for the huge delay.
  
• Axl had a huge responsibility of making an AMAZING album, there's another reason for the huge delay.... and we know it didn't really help GnR.
  

Now what if Axl had dropped the GnR name?

• Less pressure. Probably could've released it by 2002. There was a lot more interest in GnR back then.
  
• Label wouldn't work against it.
  
• People wouldn't think Axl hijacked GnR. It'd just be an Axl album, or an album by a new band. There wouldn't be a prejudice against it.
  
• Axl would STILL have 100% of the rights to the GnR name.
  
• Sounds different? Has different members? Oh... that's great! So does VR!
  

It's not all about money. I doubt the money difference is worth Axl being literally hated by at least half of his hardcore fans, the media, the labels, etc... I doubt it's worth the headache it must have been to release the damn album. The music industry is also about POLITICS.

Maybe ChiDem just wasn't that good? ever consider that?

Impossible. Even an Axl fart makes Unicorns sing along.

[SoulMonster]

But doesn't' the fact that there have been so many lineup changes, to the point where GnR is more like a revolving door than a band

Do you literally mean that Guns N' Roses has become a revolving door and is not a band anymore? Do you mean that there is a limit to how many lineup changes a band can go through before it ceases to be a band and becomes something else (a revolving door, perhaps)?

mean that all the musicians playing in GnR now and before CD was released are nothing but hired guns, with no level or artistic input in the band?

No artistic input? You are aware that the songs on Chinese Democracy wasn't written by Axl alone? Other band members brought in songs that were then tweaked in a band effort to the songs on the album?

Or maybe that their input was so minimal that it didn't really make a difference in the sound? I find it hard to believe that CD was anything but an Axl solo album.

Then go read the song writing credits...

[Rustycage]

Who decided to chop up solos and rearrange them? It sure came as a surprise to the artists.

[saber_]

It's not an "Axl Rose band" record because Bucket and Finck were given a ton of creative control.

Yea, clearly so much so that one would go back to being a solo artist and the other went back to one of the most notable control freaks, Trent Reznor. You fall for the lip service.

Lip service? I know it might be difficult to accept the cold, hard truth. Bucket used GnR to promote his own career. But that doesn't change the fact his stamp is all over Chinese Democracy. Hell, Chinese Democracy sometimes sounds like a Bucket record with Axl on vocals.

[SoulMonster]

I'm glad you aksed, Fatty McFatback. A band has equal input and compromise.

Ridiculous, both the unprovoked attempt at an insult and your argument. Rolling Stone is not a band then?

A little something called integrity.

Choosing to not throw in the cards when everyone else left, suggests integrity. Refusing to reunite with people one despise solely for money, suggests integrity. I don't think you know what the word means.

[Rustycage]

It's not an "Axl Rose band" record because Bucket and Finck were given a ton of creative control.

Yea, clearly so much so that one would go back to being a solo artist and the other went back to one of the most notable control freaks, Trent Reznor. You fall for the lip service.

Lip service? I know it might be difficult to accept the cold, hard truth. Bucket used GnR to promote his own career. But that doesn't change the fact his stamp is all over Chinese Democracy. Hell, Chinese Democracy sometimes sounds like a Bucket record with Axl on vocals.

That's opinion, not "cold hard truth." Cole hard truth is the two members that supposedly had so much creative control left the band before their work was even heard on record. What's your excuse for Finck? He would rather be controlled by Trent than be free in Guns N Roses. With the Great Wall of Pity that is surrounding Axl Rose, I am surprised he can even leave his property. You saying Bucket used GNR is an opinion based on your bias pity for Axl.

I'm glad you aksed, Fatty McFatback. A band has equal input and compromise.

Ridiculous, both the unprovoked attempt at an insult and your argument. Rolling Stone is not a band then?

A little something called integrity.

Choosing to not throw in the cards when everyone else left, suggests integrity. Refusing to reunite with people one despise solely for money, suggests integrity. I don't think you know what the word means.

Integrity would be to carry on with your own merits and abilities, not hijacking a band name and relying on it's back catalog. He still relies on it even today. What you call integrity is what everyone objectively would call a CRUTCH!

[bran]

It's not an "Axl Rose band" record because Bucket and Finck were given a ton of creative control.

Yea, clearly so much so that one would go back to being a solo artist and the other went back to one of the most notable control freaks, Trent Reznor. You fall for the lip service.

Lip service? I know it might be difficult to accept the cold, hard truth. Bucket used GnR to promote his own career. But that doesn't change the fact his stamp is all over Chinese Democracy. Hell, Chinese Democracy sometimes sounds like a Bucket record with Axl on vocals.

thats what irritates me when people talk about CD being an axl rose solo album its utter bullshit. bucket,robin are all over the album same goes with the rest of the band.

as for the difference between a band and a solo project, their isnt really a huge difference. take for example ozzy. he went solo after sabbath bob daisley would write quite a bit of lyrics,ozzy would do vocal melodies and some lyrics, randy would come up with riffs and solos, bob daisley came up with his bass lines and lee kerslake would come up with his drum fills, hell the whole album was produced by the band. it was no different than how sabbath operated and they were a band and so wasnt ozzys solo project the only difference is in the name(which some people on here are fucking obsessed to the limit about)

instead of ozzy naming the band something else he went solo and got the top billing

[SoulMonster]

Cole hard truth is the two members that supposedly had so much creative control left the band before their work was even heard on record.

It hasn't even faintly crossed your mind that there could be other reasons for leaving a band than not having enough artistic input?

Integrity would be to carry on with your own merits and abilities, not hijacking a band name

No band name was hijacked. When Steven was kicked out, Guns N' Roses was still a band with Axl, Izzy, Duff and Steven. When Izzy left, Guns N' Roses was still a band with Axl, Dizzy, Duff, Matt and Slash. When Gilby was fired, Guns N' Roses was still a band with Axl, Dizzy, Duff, Matt and Slash. When Slash quit, Guns N' Roses was still a band with Axl, Dizzy, Duff and Matt. When Matt quit/was fired, Guns N' Roses was still a band with Axl, Dizzy and Duff. When Duff left, Guns N' Roses was still a band with Axl, Dizzy and Paul. And so on. At no time was Axl alone with the band after having "driven everyone else away". At no point did he "hijack" the name.

and relying on it's back catalog.

Guns N' Roses will always draw crowds because of its back catalogue, Guns N' Roses will always play the classic songs. Even if the AFD lineup was still active you would hear AFD and UYI songs on the concerts. No reason to complain, it's just how it is.

What you call integrity is what everyone objectively would call a CRUTCH!

No, I wasn't talking about having to play songs from a strong back catalogues, I am talking about the integrity as suggested by choosing to continue when key people left, choosing not to reunite for money, choosing to play 5-8 songs from the new record, choosing to play by ones own rules regardless of what the world thinks of you. That is integrity.

[AxlRose14]

It's not an "Axl Rose band" record because Bucket and Finck were given a ton of creative control.

Yea, clearly so much so that one would go back to being a solo artist and the other went back to one of the most notable control freaks, Trent Reznor. You fall for the lip service.

Your opinion is your opinion just like mine is my opinion. You can keep lying about being in the industry to make it seem more valid but it doesn't make it so.

Tell me;What is the difference between a solo artist and the current state of GNR? Solo artist has final say of the direction of the music. So does Axl. Solo artists have an ever changing line up. So does Axl.

I'll cut this short and help you with the answer. The only difference is the name. Without the GNR name, what would make this unlike a solo artist. Don't distract. What difference is there? None.

And btw, I follow more bands than you think. From the 50's on. A lot of which stayed independent. A lot of which depended on unity as a band. Integrity. It's possible to have fun creating and playing music without turning the band into a dictatorship business With Axl Trump running the show.

Wow you can talk..ok then genious, why would Slash, Izzy and Duff sell the rights to Axl??

Fact is they didn't care about Axl or the band. Each guy was a selfish prick, and being intoxicated while signing over the rights is no excuse. If they had a problem with it, it should have been addressed back then. Slash has no excuse to sueing Axl, at all. Or izzy, or duff. They didn't have a gun to the back of their heads, all 3 are idiots and knew what they were doing.

What's the difference between GNR today and a solo artist? Can you answer that?

YES. The current band does have creative control, dizzy and dj have been writing material. Each member has contributed, hell pitman and dizzy put together silkworms, yet to be released.

It's a band ppl just cry because they're called Guns N Roses, which they should be. Name 1 good reason they shouldn't. Each member sold their rights and knew wtf they were doing. Accountability, look it up slash izzy and duff!!!!

[Cosmo]

I just think everyone would be better off if Axl hadn't used the GnR name for CD: Even and especially Axl.

Guns N' Roses is one of the most successful bands in the world right now and Axl has 100% ownership of the band. Please explain how Axl would be better off had he gone solo. Thanks.

Chinese Democracy is, IMO, an amazing album from start to finish. IMO, no album in the 2000's even came close to it. Then why the hell wasn't it a big success? Here's some reasons why:

• People were against Axl taking control over GnR and protested against having GnR without the old members, especially Slash. They didn't want to like it.
  
• The record label, the music industry as a whole were against it. Even if they wanted CD to sell, they wanted a reunion even more. There's one of the reasons for the huge delay.
  
• Axl had a huge responsibility of making an AMAZING album, there's another reason for the huge delay.... and we know it didn't really help GnR.
  

Now what if Axl had dropped the GnR name?

• Less pressure. Probably could've released it by 2002. There was a lot more interest in GnR back then.
  
• Label wouldn't work against it.
  
• People wouldn't think Axl hijacked GnR. It'd just be an Axl album, or an album by a new band. There wouldn't be a prejudice against it.
  
• Axl would STILL have 100% of the rights to the GnR name.
  
• Sounds different? Has different members? Oh... that's great! So does VR!
  

It's not all about money. I doubt the money difference is worth Axl being literally hated by at least half of his hardcore fans, the media, the labels, etc... I doubt it's worth the headache it must have been to release the damn album. The music industry is also about POLITICS.

Maybe ChiDem just wasn't that good? ever consider that?

Impossible. Even an Axl fart makes Unicorns sing along.

Please, show me how that changes my line gf thought?

Let's say CD sucked? Ok... What's better? A sucky album by a non-hated artist or a sucky album by a hated artist?

Edited June 9, 2012 by The Only Cosmonaut

[bran]

It's not an "Axl Rose band" record because Bucket and Finck were given a ton of creative control.

Yea, clearly so much so that one would go back to being a solo artist and the other went back to one of the most notable control freaks, Trent Reznor. You fall for the lip service.

Your opinion is your opinion just like mine is my opinion. You can keep lying about being in the industry to make it seem more valid but it doesn't make it so.

Tell me;What is the difference between a solo artist and the current state of GNR? Solo artist has final say of the direction of the music. So does Axl. Solo artists have an ever changing line up. So does Axl.

I'll cut this short and help you with the answer. The only difference is the name. Without the GNR name, what would make this unlike a solo artist. Don't distract. What difference is there? None.

And btw, I follow more bands than you think. From the 50's on. A lot of which stayed independent. A lot of which depended on unity as a band. Integrity. It's possible to have fun creating and playing music without turning the band into a dictatorship business With Axl Trump running the show.

Wow you can talk..ok then genious, why would Slash, Izzy and Duff sell the rights to Axl??

Fact is they didn't care about Axl or the band. Each guy was a selfish prick, and being intoxicated while signing over the rights is no excuse. If they had a problem with it, it should have been addressed back then. Slash has no excuse to sueing Axl, at all. Or izzy, or duff. They didn't have a gun to the back of their heads, all 3 are idiots and knew what they were doing.

What's the difference between GNR today and a solo artist? Can you answer that?

YES. The current band does have creative control, dizzy and dj have been writing material. Each member has contributed, hell pitman and dizzy put together silkworms, yet to be released.

It's a band ppl just cry because they're called Guns N Roses, which they should be. Name 1 good reason they shouldn't. Each member sold their rights and knew wtf they were doing. Accountability, look it up slash izzy and duff!!!!

exactly, apparently the original lineup didnt give a rats ass about the name why should others?

[Rustycage]

thats what irritates me when people talk about CD being an axl rose solo album its utter bullshit. bucket,robin are all over the album same goes with the rest of the band.

Of course they are, Axl can't play the instruments himself. Where are they now and what is your excuse for it with Finck? Did he prefer to just play what Trent tells him to play instead being involved in the creative process?

as for the difference between a band and a solo project, their isnt really a huge difference. take for example ozzy. he went solo after sabbath bob daisley would write quite a bit of lyrics,ozzy would do vocal melodies and some lyrics, randy would come up with riffs and solos, bob daisley came up with his bass lines and lee kerslake would come up with his drum fills, hell the whole album was produced by the band. it was no different than how sabbath operated and they were a band and so wasnt ozzys solo project the only difference is in the name(which some people on here are fucking obsessed to the limit about)

instead of ozzy naming the band something else he went solo and got the top billing

So if Ozzy can do it, why can't Axl? Finck leaves because he doesn't like writing music(supposedly) and Axl prefers to play sets mostly made up of the back catalog instead of introducing or playing new songs that everyone clinging onto his balls says are "masterpieces." Obviously some of the classic has to be played but this band has been in "Round 1" for 10 years now with 3 of the members receiving TKO's before the opening bell and it's still a nostalgic tour with the GNR name selling tickets.

People should be pissed off about the main man dragging the band's legacy through a pig pen (after it exhausted the chicken pen) with promises of a new direction that can't exist on it's own. It needs the GNR name to jump start it. At least Ozzy took the leap and put his name on the line. Axl wants to keep the name that sells tickets and blame anyone else when there is a hint of failure.

What's the next excuse going to be when Ron leaves?

[Cosmo]

I love how Rusty Cage misses posts when convenient.

[Rustycage]

Cole hard truth is the two members that supposedly had so much creative control left the band before their work was even heard on record.

It hasn't even faintly crossed your mind that there could be other reasons for leaving a band than not having enough artistic input?

Integrity would be to carry on with your own merits and abilities, not hijacking a band name

No band name was hijacked. When Steven was kicked out, Guns N' Roses was still a band with Axl, Izzy, Duff and Steven. When Izzy left, Guns N' Roses was still a band with Axl, Dizzy, Duff, Matt and Slash. When Gilby was fired, Guns N' Roses was still a band with Axl, Dizzy, Duff, Matt and Slash. When Slash quit, Guns N' Roses was still a band with Axl, Dizzy, Duff and Matt. When Matt quit/was fired, Guns N' Roses was still a band with Axl, Dizzy and Duff. When Duff left, Guns N' Roses was still a band with Axl, Dizzy and Paul. And so on. At no time was Axl alone with the band after having "driven everyone else away". At no point did he "hijack" the name.

and relying on it's back catalog.

Guns N' Roses will always draw crowds because of its back catalogue, Guns N' Roses will always play the classic songs. Even if the AFD lineup was still active you would hear AFD and UYI songs on the concerts. No reason to complain, it's just how it is.

What you call integrity is what everyone objectively would call a CRUTCH!

No, I wasn't talking about having to play songs from a strong back catalogues, I am talking about the integrity as suggested by choosing to continue when key people left, choosing not to reunite for money, choosing to play 5-8 songs from the new record, choosing to play by ones own rules regardless of what the world thinks of you. That is integrity.

The name is a crutch. Forget the back catalog. Apparently you are oblivious to why and how he came to own the name. Not to make this about Slash but for the purposes of this discussion, what do you call it when a member of a band tells another member that the songs he wrote are not good enough? That is some insight to an obvious situation that is still occurring with the current lineup. Solos rearranged and band members leaving. And gag orders? WTF, do you just refuse to think objectively? Everything points you to there being a control freak but you feel some obligation to defend him. CD was supposed to do the talking but instead we have have apologists manning the ship.

[bran]

thats what irritates me when people talk about CD being an axl rose solo album its utter bullshit. bucket,robin are all over the album same goes with the rest of the band.

Of course they are, Axl can't play the instruments himself. Where are they now and what is your excuse for it with Finck? Did he prefer to just play what Trent tells him to play instead being involved in the creative process?

as for the difference between a band and a solo project, their isnt really a huge difference. take for example ozzy. he went solo after sabbath bob daisley would write quite a bit of lyrics,ozzy would do vocal melodies and some lyrics, randy would come up with riffs and solos, bob daisley came up with his bass lines and lee kerslake would come up with his drum fills, hell the whole album was produced by the band. it was no different than how sabbath operated and they were a band and so wasnt ozzys solo project the only difference is in the name(which some people on here are fucking obsessed to the limit about)

instead of ozzy naming the band something else he went solo and got the top billing

So if Ozzy can do it, why can't Axl? Finck leaves because he doesn't like writing music(supposedly) and Axl prefers to play sets mostly made up of the back catalog instead of introducing or playing new songs that everyone clinging onto his balls says are "masterpieces." Obviously some of the classic has to be played but this band has been in "Round 1" for 10 years now with 3 of the members receiving TKO's before the opening bell and it's still a nostalgic tour with the GNR name selling tickets.

People should be pissed off about the main man dragging the band's legacy through a pig pen (after it exhausted the chicken pen) with promises of a new direction that can't exist on it's own. It needs the GNR name to jump start it. At least Ozzy took the leap and put his name on the line. Axl wants to keep the name that sells tickets and blame anyone else when there is a hint of failure.

What's the next excuse going to be when Ron leaves?

ozzy chose not to create a band with its own name , it was still very much a band the only difference was the name . why are you so obsessed with a name? the rest of the original lineup didnt give a rats ass when they signed the name over why do you care so much?

axl hasnt run any name through the mud

[AxlRose14]

It's not an "Axl Rose band" record because Bucket and Finck were given a ton of creative control.

Yea, clearly so much so that one would go back to being a solo artist and the other went back to one of the most notable control freaks, Trent Reznor. You fall for the lip service.

Your opinion is your opinion just like mine is my opinion. You can keep lying about being in the industry to make it seem more valid but it doesn't make it so.

Tell me;What is the difference between a solo artist and the current state of GNR? Solo artist has final say of the direction of the music. So does Axl. Solo artists have an ever changing line up. So does Axl.

I'll cut this short and help you with the answer. The only difference is the name. Without the GNR name, what would make this unlike a solo artist. Don't distract. What difference is there? None.

And btw, I follow more bands than you think. From the 50's on. A lot of which stayed independent. A lot of which depended on unity as a band. Integrity. It's possible to have fun creating and playing music without turning the band into a dictatorship business With Axl Trump running the show.

Wow you can talk..ok then genious, why would Slash, Izzy and Duff sell the rights to Axl??

Fact is they didn't care about Axl or the band. Each guy was a selfish prick, and being intoxicated while signing over the rights is no excuse. If they had a problem with it, it should have been addressed back then. Slash has no excuse to sueing Axl, at all. Or izzy, or duff. They didn't have a gun to the back of their heads, all 3 are idiots and knew what they were doing.

What's the difference between GNR today and a solo artist? Can you answer that?

YES. The current band does have creative control, dizzy and dj have been writing material. Each member has contributed, hell pitman and dizzy put together silkworms, yet to be released.

It's a band ppl just cry because they're called Guns N Roses, which they should be. Name 1 good reason they shouldn't. Each member sold their rights and knew wtf they were doing. Accountability, look it up slash izzy and duff!!!!

exactly, apparently the original lineup didnt give a rats ass about the name why should others?

Cuz ppl like the idiot I just owned are still pissed off at axl for making them wait 3 hours for the last show they went to go see...get over it. Axl tells it like it is.

It's absolutely rediculous to hate the guy just because he doesn't do what you expect of him

[SoulMonster]

The name is a crutch. Forget the back catalog. Apparently you are oblivious to why and how he came to own the name. Not to make this about Slash but for the purposes of this discussion, what do you call it when a member of a band tells another member that the songs he wrote are not good enough?

It happens in most bands but I don't have a name for it. What do you call it?

That is some insight to an obvious situation that is still occurring with the current lineup. Solos rearranged

Whereas others are intact. What's your point?

and band members leaving.

And that somehow makes it a solo band? Are you drunk?

And gag orders?

Even if it were proved they existed it wouldn't make Guns N' Roses less a band.

WTF, do you just refuse to think objectively?

I am waiting for you to explain how Guns N' Roses is not "a band of musicians writing and playing music together", but you fall short again and again.

Everything points you to there being a control freak but you feel some obligation to defend him. CD was supposed to do the talking but instead we have have apologists manning the ship.

I am confident you are drunk now.

[WhazUp]

Not neccesarily a solo act, but I do hold the mindset that the band is a different band with the same name rather than the same band with a different lineup. Who knows, maybe under a different band name things wouldn't have gotten so crazy legally and it would have been easier for Axl?