Bobbo Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) Hey Marc. I've seen you acknowledge in the past that you thought it would've been easier for Axl to continue on solo rather than under the GNR banner.But do you agree with his decision morally? Do you think it's right he's continuing "GNR" without anybody else that gave the name the legacy and, most importantly, the weight it still carries today? Especially since he's barely moved on in terms of new material. Or do you think he should have retired it when he was the last man standing, and had left the legacy those guys built with him in the past? Just curious. Edited August 1, 2012 by Bobbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
recklessroad Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I thought Axl should have tried to do a solo record in 1996. That way he could have done anything he wanted with out a fight. The old band would have had a better chance getting back together at some point after that. If anyone person was going to keep the GNR name, then Axl would be the best choice to keep it going. The only problem is there is almost no chance for the old band to ever do anything again because the partnership is broken. However if Axl had put out a few solo records does not mean that the old band would be back together by now. The only difference is I think Axl would have had more music by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dariablue Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 You had said before that Axl mentioned he wasn't "up to" making a solo album. What does that mean? Was he worried that it wouldn't be as successful as GNR or that he wouldn't be able to do it without the band? I think a lot of fans would have loved a solo album of piano driven songs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bards Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Axl actually seemed very gung-ho about doing a solo album in the mid 90's when everyone else in the band was doing one. He talked about getting Reznor, Navarro (after the failed Guns experiment) and a lot of other "90's" musicians to work on it. What changed to make him shy away from that? If Axl could have got it "out of his system" so to speak, would he have been more open to record another hard rock record with the rest of the band? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
recklessroad Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Axl actually seemed very gung-ho about doing a solo album in the mid 90's when everyone else in the band was doing one. He talked about getting Reznor, Navarro (after the failed Guns experiment) and a lot of other "90's" musicians to work on it. What changed to make him shy away from that? If Axl could have got it "out of his system" so to speak, would he have been more open to record another hard rock record with the rest of the band?Nothing to do with a hard rock record. Just because Axl was looking for something new doesn't mean that it wouldn't be hard rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts