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

[Cosmo]

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?

Why thank you! See? There's still a shed of light in these forums.

Edited June 9, 2012 by The Only Cosmonaut

[bran]

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?

Why thank you! See? There's still a shed of light in these forums.

i dont think a different name would have helped axl at all. the management would always push for a reunion of the original lineup.

[Rustycage]

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.

Right here you even point to an obvious problem. Silkworms has been around for a long time but who decided it wasn't good enough to be on CD?

But honestly, who cares about Dizzy and Pitman? What are they going to do, leave the band and go solo? Yea, Hookers and Blow are just brilliant, aren't they? Especially when even they rely on the GNR catalog. There is already DOCUMENTED history of creative control being dictated. You aren't going to be able to erase it with your current denial.

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

So now I'm an idiot? I'm not the one with a groupie name PRETENDING to be objective.

[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?

Why thank you! See? There's still a shed of light in these forums.

i dont think a different name would have helped axl at all. the management would always push for a reunion of the original lineup.

Even though a reunion is always wanted, with a different name perhaps Axl wouldn't have so many lawsuits involving GNR in terms of music incorporation and branding? I can bet the lawsuit involving Slash and Duff would not have taken place and the record label contract may have been a bit different.

[Cosmo]

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?

Why thank you! See? There's still a shed of light in these forums.

i dont think a different name would have helped axl at all. the management would always push for a reunion of the original lineup.

I think popular acceptance, media acceptance, label acceptance is the key here. By keeping the GnR name, Axl chose to swim against the current to deliver the same package he would've delivered if he chose the easier path.

[Chewbacca]

The album may have been more fairly received, but it still wouldn't have been a good business decision.

This.

[Madridista]

My biggest problem with this band, the new lineup I mean, is that it hasn't made anything truly memorable that makes us get over the fact that the old lineup is no longer there.

When Iron Maiden fired Paul Dianno right after Killers, everybody thought it was a huge mistake. They had fired their frontman, the voice of the band. I'm sure people complained and said they'd fail after that. But what'd they do? They got someone better and made awesome albums, truly memorable songs, epic songs and epic albums. Did anybody remember Paul Dianno by the time Maiden released Powerslave? NO.

This band, the new Guns, has made ONE ALBUM IN 15 YEARS. I'll say it again, 1 album in 15 years. And the songs are just ok, just ok. Nothing to write home about. So of course most of us have been unable to truly connect with this new lineup. where are the truly memorable songs? Where are the truly catchy tunes, the choruses, the epic solos? Nowhere to be found.

At the end of the day, and even if we don't talk about Slash or Duff or Izzy, it all comes down to THE MUSIC. And GnR is no longer making memorable music. If CD were the masterpiece some of you seem to believe it is, GnR would be right back where it was in 1992. But it's not.

Nobody cares about CD, besides fans in these forums, which is sad, because back when the UYI albums came out, EVERYONE knew who GnR was. Yeah, the band was THAT big and relevant.

So where is the new music? When will the new album come out? Does Axl still have it? 15 years and all he could come up with was CD? Please don't make me laugh.

Fans will stop missing the old lineup, when this new band makes something really impressive, and when they can finally stop living off the old catalogue. IMO.

[Rustycage]

When there are like 10 posts to my one, how do you expect me to keep up? I'm not skipping anything, all of you say the same thing and I try to address it collectively. Either read or be patient. It's just me. It's not like you're arguments are new or anything. It's not like you have me on the e-ropes or anything. I used to be just like you. I first came to this board with the same mindset until things revealed themselves and I was objective and humble enough to admit, I WAS WRONG about Axl.

Once you settle your selves down a little and listen to some good ole rock n techno rap GNR I'll catch up to your echo chamber of excuses.

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?

Why thank you! See? There's still a shed of light in these forums.

Yea, I already posted that. My first response in this topic:

Yes. People would have been less critical.

But ohhhhh, let me state my opinion of why I feel that way and it's feeding time for the apes.

[bran]

My biggest problem with this band, the new lineup I mean, is that it hasn't made anything truly memorable that makes us get over the fact that the old lineup is no longer there.

When Iron Maiden fired Paul Dianno right after Killers, everybody thought it was a huge mistake. They had fired their frontman, the voice of the band. I'm sure people complained and said they'd fail after that. But what'd they do? They got someone better and made awesome albums, truly memorable songs, epic songs and epic albums. Did anybody remember Paul Dianno by the time Maiden released Powerslave? NO.

This band, the new Guns, has made ONE ALBUM IN 15 YEARS. I'll say it again, 1 album in 15 years. And the songs are just ok, just ok. Nothing to write home about. So of course most of us have been unable to truly connect with this new lineup. where are the truly memorable songs? Where are the truly catchy tunes, the choruses, the epic solos? Nowhere to be found.

At the end of the day, and even if we don't talk about Slash or Duff or Izzy, it all comes down to THE MUSIC. And GnR is no longer making memorable music. If CD were the masterpiece some of you seem to believe it is, GnR would be right back where it was in 1992. But it's not.

Nobody cares about CD, besides fans in these forums, which is sad, because back when the UYI albums came out, EVERYONE knew who GnR was. Yeah, the band was THAT big and relevant.

So where is the new music? When will the new album come out? Does Axl still have it? 15 years and all he could come up with was CD? Please don't make me laugh.

Fans will stop missing the old lineup, when this new band makes something really impressive, and when they can finally stop living off the old catalogue. IMO.

the thing is though in 1991 was the music climate and industry were totally different. rock, hard rock and metal were still big buisness those albums were highly publicised and pushed.

today rock,hard rock and metal are not mainstream for the most parts and the bands that are mainstream in those genres are watered down for as much public consumption as possible.

also in 1991 people actually had to buy their music, there wasnt a such thing as pirating like there is now. slashs solo album sold 38,000 copies in its first week in the us which put him on #4 on the billboard top 200 chart. in 1991 you could sell a 100k copies in a week and not crack the top 5

[Rustycage]

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?

Destructive.

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?

A creative dictatorship. Do you have short term memory loss?

and band members leaving.

And that somehow makes it a solo band?

It's further confirmation of the main problem. A recurring theme not easily dismissed as a coincidence.

And gag orders?

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

It's further confirmation of the main problem. A recurring theme not easily dismissed as a coincidence.

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.

That isn't how you phrased it. You are trying to redefine the terms here. You askled why they shouldn't be Guns N Roses. I explained how creative control rests with ONE individual. You claim differently. With your explanation, you would have to conclude that Robin didn't like writing music to support your claim. I've already explained it but apparently you are too busy chopping up quotes to actually read them.

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.

[Rustycage]

also in 1991 people actually had to buy their music, there wasnt a such thing as pirating like there is now. slashs solo album sold 38,000 copies in its first week in the us which put him on #4 on the billboard top 200 chart. in 1991 you could sell a 100k copies in a week and not crack the top 5

Not entirely true. You only needed one friend to buy it and copy it to tape for you. Tapes were still king at that time.

There has not been a "must buy the album to hear the music" scenario for a long time.

But I like your Slash reference. Great point. Isn't it interesting how a band name call help you sell records? Crutches aren't an attribute of "bravery" or "integrity" that is the forum label for Axl.

[SoulMonster]

A creative dictatorship. Do you have short term memory loss?

The fact that Axl comped some solos doesn't make it a creative dictatorship nor a solo project.

It's further confirmation of the main problem. A recurring theme not easily dismissed as a coincidence.

It is NOT confirmation of GN'R being a solo project regardless of how much you want it to be. I would say it is a sign of being bored and bad chemistry with other band members...

It's further confirmation of the main problem. A recurring theme not easily dismissed as a coincidence.

It is NOT confirmation of GN'R being a solo project regardless of how much you want it to.

You are trying to redefine the terms here. You askled why they shouldn't be Guns N Roses. I explained how creative control rests with ONE individual.

But you haven't. You have pointed to assumptions regarding how the legalities of the band is run (gag order), and your very own far-fetched hypotheses as to why some band members have left, and the trivial fact that Axl comped some solos, and try to make this an explanation of "how creative control rests with ONE individual" while at the same time completely disregarding the fact that both Bucket and Robin brought in whole songs to the band, the fact that other band members got to choose what songs to have on the record, and the fact that all band members got to contribute with what they got and have major song credits. You are grasping at straws.

You claim differently. With your explanation, you would have to conclude that Robin didn't like writing music to support your claim.

?? I believe Robin left because he was bored and perhaps didn't get very well along with everyone else. I don't think it has anything to do with creative control.

[Rustycage]

Just because you're a fan doesn't mean you have to be a blind follower. Like talking to a wall. Lesson learned.

[KiraMPD]

I'm guessing the songs were written and developed with GnR in mind right? I imagine that an Axl Rose solo album would sound significantly different to CD.

That's an interesting thought. I have always felt that this was a solo effort anyway, with hired writers and musicians to assist in the process. It's always been described as Axl's vision. The way Brain described his role in recording for example, it certainly wasn't his vision, nor have I ever heard that it was somehow Bucket's vision or Finck's vision, etc. Guys came in and recorded, other guys came in and re-recorded, and this was all under Axl's direction, not theirs as a collective band. So my opinion was that the album would have sounded exactly the same no matter what name it was marketed under.

Well... I think I'm probably looking at it from a different point of view to you. Yes, the people that have worked on CD were not in the classic lineup (in fact a whole hoard of people worked on it) and it was more Axl's vision rather than the vision of a band. And how could it be? There wasn't one stable lineup during the making of CD! In this way CD can be considered as a solo effort and not a GnR album. I agree with this outlook to an extent.

But on the flip side, if I look at the contents of CD and the message some of the songs carry across, I can't help but think that they were made to be associated with the GnR name. Songs like Madagascar, Prostitute, CD and Sorry seem to be very much about GnR and Axl's POV of the situation there. Of course it could have been released as a solo effort but I think it's sort of apt that they are under the GnR banner...? Argh... I don't think I'm explaining myself very well here but what I'm trying to say is that Axl obviously wrote these songs for Guns with Guns in mind. For that reason I would not prefer them to be release as anything other than that.

I think an Axl Rose solo album would sound different because he wouldn't be writing for the band (or the GnR name), he wouldn't have been under as much pressure to create a "GnR" record, to go bigger and better than before. He would have been more free to do what he wanted creatively without the stigma of trying to generate the "next big GnR record". But that does beg the question; does Axl only write for Guns and Roses? Have there been any songs that he has written but rejected because he didn't think to was a Guns song?

Ah, sorry. I've rambled on a bit there. OTL

[Rustycage]

He's in the band now.

[Rustycage]

Musician, poet, wrestler, music industry psychic, email hacker and leak vendor. You can keep waiting. It'd probably be best to just move on because at this point, you're just trying to stir up a conflict and you're going to come up empty. Drop it.

[Rustycage]

You are derailing the topic. Drop it and move on. Last post to ya.

[Patience 4 Axl]

I'm guessing the songs were written and developed with GnR in mind right? I imagine that an Axl Rose solo album would sound significantly different to CD.

That's an interesting thought. I have always felt that this was a solo effort anyway, with hired writers and musicians to assist in the process. It's always been described as Axl's vision. The way Brain described his role in recording for example, it certainly wasn't his vision, nor have I ever heard that it was somehow Bucket's vision or Finck's vision, etc. Guys came in and recorded, other guys came in and re-recorded, and this was all under Axl's direction, not theirs as a collective band. So my opinion was that the album would have sounded exactly the same no matter what name it was marketed under.

Well... I think I'm probably looking at it from a different point of view to you. Yes, the people that have worked on CD were not in the classic lineup (in fact a whole hoard of people worked on it) and it was more Axl's vision rather than the vision of a band. And how could it be? There wasn't one stable lineup during the making of CD! In this way CD can be considered as a solo effort and not a GnR album. I agree with this outlook to an extent.

But on the flip side, if I look at the contents of CD and the message some of the songs carry across, I can't help but think that they were made to be associated with the GnR name. Songs like Madagascar, Prostitute, CD and Sorry seem to be very much about GnR and Axl's POV of the situation there. Of course it could have been released as a solo effort but I think it's sort of apt that they are under the GnR banner...? Argh... I don't think I'm explaining myself very well here but what I'm trying to say is that Axl obviously wrote these songs for Guns with Guns in mind. For that reason I would not prefer them to be release as anything other than that.

I think an Axl Rose solo album would sound different because he wouldn't be writing for the band (or the GnR name), he wouldn't have been under as much pressure to create a "GnR" record, to go bigger and better than before. He would have been more free to do what he wanted creatively without the stigma of trying to generate the "next big GnR record". But that does beg the question; does Axl only write for Guns and Roses? Have there been any songs that he has written but rejected because he didn't think to was a Guns song?

Ah, sorry. I've rambled on a bit there. OTL

Another interesting post, and I do understand what you're trying to say. ( I think! ) You bring up a good point about the songs.

AFD for example, was the story of ALL their lives. Part of what made that album so special was how real and raw it was, and it came from the perspective of the entire band, not just one person. It was thier experiences, their world as they knew it. They were the real deal, who lived what they wrote about.

CD however are Axl songs, and clearly his point of view. Can the other members of the band even relate to any of it? Do they really understand the message in the words, or the emotions behind it? I get what you're saying that Axl wrote it for GNR, and because of GNR, but ultimately it's mainly his story, not the other band members. Perhaps he felt the only way he could present it was as Guns, but imo it still doesn't make it a Guns record. It's like when Billie Joe mentioned in the HOF induction, when he was talking about how bands write music based on eras and chapters of their lives. Their albums reflect where they are during certain those times in their lives. Does CD reflect the members of this band, is it their collective story, or that of just one guy?

See, that's one of the main things sadly that is truly lacking, we don't even know! Think of all the information we have on all the classic songs. Numerous comments from Axl, Slash, Izzy, Duff and Steven on who came up with what, where something was writtten, why something was written, all that cool behind the scenes stuff which explained a lot of the details. There's nothing like that with CD. Unless you count Ron talking about the riffs he added here and there. Riveting. No comments from band members, no witty stories, no explanation for the inspiration. Axl's own brief explanations on a few of the tracks were underwhelming. It's just another thing added to the list of why CD falls short compared to the other GNR material and, why it should have been presented as the solo album it was.

[classicrawker]

btw there are no gag orders. i can say that with 100% certainty. another myth with no basis in fact. band members often say very little because they know how often plans can change and they have little to gain from speaking.

Citation please otherwise it is just another of your opinions you state as a fact......

[classicrawker]

btw there are no gag orders. i can say that with 100% certainty. another myth with no basis in fact. band members often say very little because they know how often plans can change and they have little to gain from speaking.

Citation please otherwise it is just another of your opinions you state as a fact......

It's very sad that you need this to be explained again. Either band members are asked to sign NDAs or they aren't. Opinion isn't involved in this. We're dealing with a matter of fact. Either I'm telling the truth or I'm lying. Opinion has nothing to do with it.

When speaking with a band member about a matter that is none of your business, I asked him if he was violating an NDA by speaking to me. He said band members are not asked to sign NDAs and that the "gag order" rumor is bullshit.

No either you can provide proof to back up your claims or it is your opinion ...since you can never support your claims it is either your opinion or you are making shit up to make it look like you have some secret insider info. Either back your claim or STFU...

So whats next you challenge me to put up money to prove you wrong...how about proving you right?

[classicrawker]

Classic Rawker -

I was under the impression that English was your first language, but now I'm having my doubts. If that is not the case, please let me know. I have no interest of arguing over the nuances of the language with someone that isn't a native speaker.

You clearly do not know what "fact" and "opinion" mean.

Either I can provide proof to back up my claims or it is an UNVERIFIED CLAIM.

Opinion has NOTHING to do with it!

Please stop using words you don't know the meaning of.

I have NO problem with you saying, "MSL, I don't believe you."

I have NO problem with you saying, "MSL, I have NO way of knowing if you're telling the truth."

But I do have a problem with you saying something is an opinion when it isn't.

Spin it how you want mate but it does not change the fact you can never support your claims so I call bullshit until you do.....

[classicrawker]

classic rawker -

cool. call bullshit all you want. just stop using words incorrectly.

you still refused to show me online where the label said they expected the album to sell twice as much as it did.

I asked you first mate...show me yours and I will show you mine......since I know you can't my job is done here........

[trqster]

Back to topic....CD is definitely an Axl solo project under the name Gn'R cause the dude owns the name and thinks pretty much that he's Gn'R by himself.

I consider New Gn'R as much an Axl band as Slash's one (w/Myles Kennedy) is - difference is that Slash doesn't disguise it as something else.

Edited June 10, 2012 by trqster

[Bruno P.]

People already proved that it is a band, Axl considers them band mates (and even thought about sharing the band's ownership with them at some point) and they had creative freedom to write what suited the songs better. It is confirmed that Shacklers is a Bucket/Brain song and that Better is a Finck song, for instance. As I said before - believe in what you wang to believe. The truth is out there. If you refuse to accept it, okay, your choice. But you will then be wrong.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Bruno Poeys

[finck6]

I asked you first mate...show me yours and I will show you mine......since I know you can't my job is done here........

Today, at 2:12PM Eastern time, you asked me where I read that nobody in the industry was expecting Chinese to sell 1.6 million physical copies at Best Buy.

Today, at 2:41PM Eastern time, I answered your question. I let you know that I did not read it anywhere (nor had I ever claimed to have read it). I then asked you to provide a link where the label expressed that Chinese sold half of what they expected in the US. I've waited nearly 7 hours and you still have refused to answer the question.

So yes, you asked first and I answered. Then I asked and you didn't answer. What gives?

Back to topic....CD is definitely an Axl solo project under the name Gn'R

How is it a SOLO album if HALF the band left and the other HALF stayed to make a record?

your lawyer said you can't talk about stuff. you been talking a lot lately