What was Axl's motive for handling the GNR situation the way he did during the last 20 years?

[izzydoezit]

Sometimes I tend to wonder why Axl never made a solo record. If all that mattered was the music he could have made a new album anytime under any name, band or solo.

Could it be that all he wanted to prove with all his actions namely the name rights issue, the new lineup under the GNR name , the way he handles the band situations etc, was that he actually IS Guns N' Roses?

He tries to bury everything that is old band related. And that is not something bands with lineup changes do usually. Nor is it normal when all your truly successful history is behind you.

What is the motive that Axl had by handling GNR the way he did over the years? I can't seriously think that Axl had just a different vision for music and that it had to be done this way only.

There must be an explanation for all that. I don't know if Axl is just so problematic or if he had something different in mind for the past 20 years of his carreer.

[Gunzen]

Cause he was hoping 20 years from now you would start this thread. Once again, Axl wins.

[Randy Lahey]

It all comes back to the divide between Axl and Slash. One thought he was invincible... the other thought he could fly. They were both wrong.

[Rovim]

Why do you assume it was all Axl's doing? He had a lot to do with it obviously, cause he was a big part of it, but placing all the blame on him won't give you an answer imo.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Rovim

[saber_]

Cause he was hoping 20 years from now you would start this thread. Once again, Axl wins.

[Apollo]

He tries to bury everything that is old band related.

Well....except for the songs that the old band created. Axl and the current band are still making a living off of those small little band related items.

[Facekicker]

He doesn't need a motive. He's a nut.

[AxlRose14]

He tries to bury everything that is old band related.

Well....except for the songs that the old band created. Axl and the current band are still making a living off of those small little band related items.

That's all nobodys like bumblefoot have..

[dalsh327]

Sometimes I tend to wonder why Axl never made a solo record. If all that mattered was the music he could have made a new album anytime under any name, band or solo.

Could it be that all he wanted to prove with all his actions namely the name rights issue, the new lineup under the GNR name , the way he handles the band situations etc, was that he actually IS Guns N' Roses?

He tries to bury everything that is old band related. And that is not something bands with lineup changes do usually. Nor is it normal when all your truly successful history is behind you.

What is the motive that Axl had by handling GNR the way he did over the years? I can't seriously think that Axl had just a different vision for music and that it had to be done this way only.

There must be an explanation for all that. I don't know if Axl is just so problematic or if he had something different in mind for the past 20 years of his carreer.

Axl gets wound up over all sorts of crap, and the GNR name is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, so everyone wants a piece of it. Sebastian Bach, Bret Michaels and Vince Neil don't headline arenas do they...

It also comes down to why Billy Corgan tours as Smashing Pumpkins and not as Billy Corgan or Zwan.

He had his explanation for what an Axl Rose solo album would be.

"Axl Rose" wouldn't have been able to play MSG or headline festivals. The rights ownership just means Slash and Duff can't legally tour as GNR. If Doug hadn't had them sign the rights over, Slash and Duff could've legally blocked Axl from using the GNR name, and could've toured as GNR because they had the 3 way partnership. I doubt Slash and Duff would've done it unless it was with the intent to piss Axl off. Why did Dave Gilmour tour as Pink Floyd without Roger? Because Roger said to him "you wouldn't fucking dare". So Axl has the name and can play shows with the name, sell t-shirts with the name, but as far as the cross logo and all that, Slash and Duff prob. have stake in that.

[ShadowOfTheWave]

Sometimes I tend to wonder why Axl never made a solo record. If all that mattered was the music he could have made a new album anytime under any name, band or solo.

Could it be that all he wanted to prove with all his actions namely the name rights issue, the new lineup under the GNR name , the way he handles the band situations etc, was that he actually IS Guns N' Roses?

He tries to bury everything that is old band related. And that is not something bands with lineup changes do usually. Nor is it normal when all your truly successful history is behind you.

What is the motive that Axl had by handling GNR the way he did over the years? I can't seriously think that Axl had just a different vision for music and that it had to be done this way only.

There must be an explanation for all that. I don't know if Axl is just so problematic or if he had something different in mind for the past 20 years of his carreer.

Axl gets wound up over all sorts of crap, and the GNR name is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, so everyone wants a piece of it. Sebastian Bach, Bret Michaels and Vince Neil don't headline arenas do they...

It also comes down to why Billy Corgan tours as Smashing Pumpkins and not as Billy Corgan or Zwan.

He had his explanation for what an Axl Rose solo album would be.

"Axl Rose" wouldn't have been able to play MSG or headline festivals. The rights ownership just means Slash and Duff can't legally tour as GNR. If Doug hadn't had them sign the rights over, Slash and Duff could've legally blocked Axl from using the GNR name, and could've toured as GNR because they had the 3 way partnership. I doubt Slash and Duff would've done it unless it was with the intent to piss Axl off. Why did Dave Gilmour tour as Pink Floyd without Roger? Because Roger said to him "you wouldn't fucking dare". So Axl has the name and can play shows with the name, sell t-shirts with the name, but as far as the cross logo and all that, Slash and Duff prob. have stake in that.

But Billy Corgan wrote all the Smashing Pumpkins music save a few tracks, it makes sense for him to keep the name.

[Babooshka]

I think he was afraid to go solo. When you look at how hyper-sensitive he is, and the various problems he has with functioning, I think it was a step too far. Especially back then when his image wasn't at its best, and he was beset by depression. That's why GNR became his solo project, which then lead to the clash with Slash.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Babooshka

[Rovim]

Sometimes I tend to wonder why Axl never made a solo record. If all that mattered was the music he could have made a new album anytime under any name, band or solo.

Could it be that all he wanted to prove with all his actions namely the name rights issue, the new lineup under the GNR name , the way he handles the band situations etc, was that he actually IS Guns N' Roses?

He tries to bury everything that is old band related. And that is not something bands with lineup changes do usually. Nor is it normal when all your truly successful history is behind you.

What is the motive that Axl had by handling GNR the way he did over the years? I can't seriously think that Axl had just a different vision for music and that it had to be done this way only.

There must be an explanation for all that. I don't know if Axl is just so problematic or if he had something different in mind for the past 20 years of his carreer.

Axl gets wound up over all sorts of crap, and the GNR name is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, so everyone wants a piece of it. Sebastian Bach, Bret Michaels and Vince Neil don't headline arenas do they...

It also comes down to why Billy Corgan tours as Smashing Pumpkins and not as Billy Corgan or Zwan.

He had his explanation for what an Axl Rose solo album would be.

"Axl Rose" wouldn't have been able to play MSG or headline festivals. The rights ownership just means Slash and Duff can't legally tour as GNR. If Doug hadn't had them sign the rights over, Slash and Duff could've legally blocked Axl from using the GNR name, and could've toured as GNR because they had the 3 way partnership. I doubt Slash and Duff would've done it unless it was with the intent to piss Axl off. Why did Dave Gilmour tour as Pink Floyd without Roger? Because Roger said to him "you wouldn't fucking dare". So Axl has the name and can play shows with the name, sell t-shirts with the name, but as far as the cross logo and all that, Slash and Duff prob. have stake in that.

But Billy Corgan wrote all the Smashing Pumpkins music save a few tracks, it makes sense for him to keep the name.

What about Fleetwood Mac?

[Aussiegun]

Sometimes I tend to wonder why Axl never made a solo record. If all that mattered was the music he could have made a new album anytime under any name, band or solo.

Could it be that all he wanted to prove with all his actions namely the name rights issue, the new lineup under the GNR name , the way he handles the band situations etc, was that he actually IS Guns N' Roses?

He tries to bury everything that is old band related. And that is not something bands with lineup changes do usually. Nor is it normal when all your truly successful history is behind you.

What is the motive that Axl had by handling GNR the way he did over the years? I can't seriously think that Axl had just a different vision for music and that it had to be done this way only.

There must be an explanation for all that. I don't know if Axl is just so problematic or if he had something different in mind for the past 20 years of his carreer.

Axl gets wound up over all sorts of crap, and the GNR name is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, so everyone wants a piece of it. Sebastian Bach, Bret Michaels and Vince Neil don't headline arenas do they...

It also comes down to why Billy Corgan tours as Smashing Pumpkins and not as Billy Corgan or Zwan.

He had his explanation for what an Axl Rose solo album would be.

"Axl Rose" wouldn't have been able to play MSG or headline festivals. The rights ownership just means Slash and Duff can't legally tour as GNR. If Doug hadn't had them sign the rights over, Slash and Duff could've legally blocked Axl from using the GNR name, and could've toured as GNR because they had the 3 way partnership. I doubt Slash and Duff would've done it unless it was with the intent to piss Axl off. Why did Dave Gilmour tour as Pink Floyd without Roger? Because Roger said to him "you wouldn't fucking dare". So Axl has the name and can play shows with the name, sell t-shirts with the name, but as far as the cross logo and all that, Slash and Duff prob. have stake in that.

But Billy Corgan wrote all the Smashing Pumpkins music save a few tracks, it makes sense for him to keep the name.

What about Fleetwood Mac?

what about it? 4 out of the 5 that made Fleetweed Mac mega famous are still with the band.

[Rovim]

Sometimes I tend to wonder why Axl never made a solo record. If all that mattered was the music he could have made a new album anytime under any name, band or solo.

Could it be that all he wanted to prove with all his actions namely the name rights issue, the new lineup under the GNR name , the way he handles the band situations etc, was that he actually IS Guns N' Roses?

He tries to bury everything that is old band related. And that is not something bands with lineup changes do usually. Nor is it normal when all your truly successful history is behind you.

What is the motive that Axl had by handling GNR the way he did over the years? I can't seriously think that Axl had just a different vision for music and that it had to be done this way only.

There must be an explanation for all that. I don't know if Axl is just so problematic or if he had something different in mind for the past 20 years of his carreer.

Axl gets wound up over all sorts of crap, and the GNR name is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, so everyone wants a piece of it. Sebastian Bach, Bret Michaels and Vince Neil don't headline arenas do they...

It also comes down to why Billy Corgan tours as Smashing Pumpkins and not as Billy Corgan or Zwan.

He had his explanation for what an Axl Rose solo album would be.

"Axl Rose" wouldn't have been able to play MSG or headline festivals. The rights ownership just means Slash and Duff can't legally tour as GNR. If Doug hadn't had them sign the rights over, Slash and Duff could've legally blocked Axl from using the GNR name, and could've toured as GNR because they had the 3 way partnership. I doubt Slash and Duff would've done it unless it was with the intent to piss Axl off. Why did Dave Gilmour tour as Pink Floyd without Roger? Because Roger said to him "you wouldn't fucking dare". So Axl has the name and can play shows with the name, sell t-shirts with the name, but as far as the cross logo and all that, Slash and Duff prob. have stake in that.

But Billy Corgan wrote all the Smashing Pumpkins music save a few tracks, it makes sense for him to keep the name.

What about Fleetwood Mac?

what about it? 4 out of the 5 that made Fleetweed Mac mega famous are still with the band.

Are you joking? It's a completely different band compared to the Peter Green era.

[Aussiegun]

Sometimes I tend to wonder why Axl never made a solo record. If all that mattered was the music he could have made a new album anytime under any name, band or solo.

Could it be that all he wanted to prove with all his actions namely the name rights issue, the new lineup under the GNR name , the way he handles the band situations etc, was that he actually IS Guns N' Roses?

He tries to bury everything that is old band related. And that is not something bands with lineup changes do usually. Nor is it normal when all your truly successful history is behind you.

What is the motive that Axl had by handling GNR the way he did over the years? I can't seriously think that Axl had just a different vision for music and that it had to be done this way only.

There must be an explanation for all that. I don't know if Axl is just so problematic or if he had something different in mind for the past 20 years of his carreer.

Axl gets wound up over all sorts of crap, and the GNR name is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, so everyone wants a piece of it. Sebastian Bach, Bret Michaels and Vince Neil don't headline arenas do they...

It also comes down to why Billy Corgan tours as Smashing Pumpkins and not as Billy Corgan or Zwan.

He had his explanation for what an Axl Rose solo album would be.

"Axl Rose" wouldn't have been able to play MSG or headline festivals. The rights ownership just means Slash and Duff can't legally tour as GNR. If Doug hadn't had them sign the rights over, Slash and Duff could've legally blocked Axl from using the GNR name, and could've toured as GNR because they had the 3 way partnership. I doubt Slash and Duff would've done it unless it was with the intent to piss Axl off. Why did Dave Gilmour tour as Pink Floyd without Roger? Because Roger said to him "you wouldn't fucking dare". So Axl has the name and can play shows with the name, sell t-shirts with the name, but as far as the cross logo and all that, Slash and Duff prob. have stake in that.

But Billy Corgan wrote all the Smashing Pumpkins music save a few tracks, it makes sense for him to keep the name.

What about Fleetwood Mac?

what about it? 4 out of the 5 that made Fleetweed Mac mega famous are still with the band.

Are you joking? It's a completely different band compared to the Peter Green era.

So is original GNR compared to Appetite GNR compared to UYI tour GNR, but a core is intact

[Rovim]

Sometimes I tend to wonder why Axl never made a solo record. If all that mattered was the music he could have made a new album anytime under any name, band or solo.

Could it be that all he wanted to prove with all his actions namely the name rights issue, the new lineup under the GNR name , the way he handles the band situations etc, was that he actually IS Guns N' Roses?

He tries to bury everything that is old band related. And that is not something bands with lineup changes do usually. Nor is it normal when all your truly successful history is behind you.

What is the motive that Axl had by handling GNR the way he did over the years? I can't seriously think that Axl had just a different vision for music and that it had to be done this way only.

There must be an explanation for all that. I don't know if Axl is just so problematic or if he had something different in mind for the past 20 years of his carreer.

Axl gets wound up over all sorts of crap, and the GNR name is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, so everyone wants a piece of it. Sebastian Bach, Bret Michaels and Vince Neil don't headline arenas do they...

It also comes down to why Billy Corgan tours as Smashing Pumpkins and not as Billy Corgan or Zwan.

He had his explanation for what an Axl Rose solo album would be.

"Axl Rose" wouldn't have been able to play MSG or headline festivals. The rights ownership just means Slash and Duff can't legally tour as GNR. If Doug hadn't had them sign the rights over, Slash and Duff could've legally blocked Axl from using the GNR name, and could've toured as GNR because they had the 3 way partnership. I doubt Slash and Duff would've done it unless it was with the intent to piss Axl off. Why did Dave Gilmour tour as Pink Floyd without Roger? Because Roger said to him "you wouldn't fucking dare". So Axl has the name and can play shows with the name, sell t-shirts with the name, but as far as the cross logo and all that, Slash and Duff prob. have stake in that.

But Billy Corgan wrote all the Smashing Pumpkins music save a few tracks, it makes sense for him to keep the name.

What about Fleetwood Mac?

what about it? 4 out of the 5 that made Fleetweed Mac mega famous are still with the band.

Are you joking? It's a completely different band compared to the Peter Green era.

So is original GNR compared to Appetite GNR compared to UYI tour GNR, but a core is intact

Umm...no. I just said it's a completely different band. It's like Appetite Gn'R compared to New Guns.

[Aussiegun]

Sometimes I tend to wonder why Axl never made a solo record. If all that mattered was the music he could have made a new album anytime under any name, band or solo.

Could it be that all he wanted to prove with all his actions namely the name rights issue, the new lineup under the GNR name , the way he handles the band situations etc, was that he actually IS Guns N' Roses?

He tries to bury everything that is old band related. And that is not something bands with lineup changes do usually. Nor is it normal when all your truly successful history is behind you.

What is the motive that Axl had by handling GNR the way he did over the years? I can't seriously think that Axl had just a different vision for music and that it had to be done this way only.

There must be an explanation for all that. I don't know if Axl is just so problematic or if he had something different in mind for the past 20 years of his carreer.

Axl gets wound up over all sorts of crap, and the GNR name is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, so everyone wants a piece of it. Sebastian Bach, Bret Michaels and Vince Neil don't headline arenas do they...

It also comes down to why Billy Corgan tours as Smashing Pumpkins and not as Billy Corgan or Zwan.

He had his explanation for what an Axl Rose solo album would be.

"Axl Rose" wouldn't have been able to play MSG or headline festivals. The rights ownership just means Slash and Duff can't legally tour as GNR. If Doug hadn't had them sign the rights over, Slash and Duff could've legally blocked Axl from using the GNR name, and could've toured as GNR because they had the 3 way partnership. I doubt Slash and Duff would've done it unless it was with the intent to piss Axl off. Why did Dave Gilmour tour as Pink Floyd without Roger? Because Roger said to him "you wouldn't fucking dare". So Axl has the name and can play shows with the name, sell t-shirts with the name, but as far as the cross logo and all that, Slash and Duff prob. have stake in that.

But Billy Corgan wrote all the Smashing Pumpkins music save a few tracks, it makes sense for him to keep the name.

What about Fleetwood Mac?

what about it? 4 out of the 5 that made Fleetweed Mac mega famous are still with the band.

Are you joking? It's a completely different band compared to the Peter Green era.

So is original GNR compared to Appetite GNR compared to UYI tour GNR, but a core is intact

Umm...no. I just said it's a completely different band. It's like Appetite Gn'R compared to New Guns.

Yeah, Appetite to Chi Dem is a big jump, but I just look at Green to Buckingham/Nicks era as Appetite to UYI era, some old style there and some new, and the end product is something different.

Anyway, this thread is about the name. The Rumours line up made Fleetwood Mac, despite the small success that Green era had.

[Rovim]

Yeah, exactly...it is about the name. And my point is relevant cause the only thing that's the same is the name, the drummer and the bass player. In the case of Fleetwood Mac - it's a precedent.

Makes me think that if Axl had released albums right away or close to after the breakup of the original line up, it would have been easier for the public to accept but who knows.

[Roush]

Self-pity, laziness, and apathy are strong motives to sit around, and do absolutely nothing.

[Aussiegun]

Yeah, exactly...it is about the name. And my point is relevant cause the only thing that's the same is the name, the drummer and the bass player. In the case of Fleetwood Mac - it's a precedent.

Makes me think that if Axl had released albums right away or close to after the breakup of the original line up, it would have been easier for the public to accept but who knows.

I think you have answered your own question in the topic about Fleetwood Mac. The public would've accepted whatever Axl incarnation if it was popular/successful/highly acclaimed.

[Rovim]

Yeah, exactly...it is about the name. And my point is relevant cause the only thing that's the same is the name, the drummer and the bass player. In the case of Fleetwood Mac - it's a precedent.

Makes me think that if Axl had released albums right away or close to after the breakup of the original line up, it would have been easier for the public to accept but who knows.

I think you have answered your own question in the topic about Fleetwood Mac. The public would've accepted whatever Axl incarnation if it was popular/successful/highly acclaimed.

My question was more about if it was valid for Axl to keep the name. I presented Fleetwood Mac as an example of why I think it was valid. You know, morally.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Rovim

[wasted]

I think it was just onw problem after another. First is get a working band up and running capable of doing the old stuff justice and new material. In a shit storm of opposition to the idea of a new line up at all.

So by 99 the have material. So they play Rio in2000 something? but for some reason in 2002 the record didnt come out. Band members drop out delaying things again. 2006 they try again but Merck fucks things up.

Hanging over the pfoject was 14 mil cost so anyone involved was prob looking for a way to make successful. It needed to be huge.

Somehow the wait made it a myth that Best buy bought into and they got this exclusive and covered the costs.

There were changes in label from interscope and Universal plus slash and duff suing Axl. You cant put out a record if youre going to lose the name.

Not to mention rerecording the album with Baker.

Bottom line it was not viable business with a 14 mil hanging round its neck. So holding out for the landscape to change was prob the labels stance.

The label had something to do with it. They wanted Baker to come in gave Axl 10 mil to do it.

They label or industry really wanted a reunion even Azoff who got the record out tried to get a reunion.

Then the record comes out and all the songs are about fuck you Ill never cave in.

In the end Axl was going to do the record his way. You have to admire that.

[PITBOSS]

It all comes back to the divide between Axl and Slash. One thought he was invincible... the other thought he could fly. They were both wrong.

my favorite randy quote for some time. thread/

Edited December 30, 2012 by PITBOSS

[Apollo]

Dalsh.....great post. Full of logic and reasonable points.

Rovin.....you hit the nail on the head. Sure, a few people will never accept Axl continuing to use the name without the members who created the classic songs. But I fully believe that if Axl had released 3-4 albums by now he that would have stopped a huge portion of the naysayers.

If Axl let this band put its imprint on GnR, then people would be debating which band put out better music. Instead of just arguing about whether they were a cover band or not.

[Rovim]

Dalsh.....great post. Full of logic and reasonable points.

Rovin.....you hit the nail on the head. Sure, a few people will never accept Axl continuing to use the name without the members who created the classic songs. But I fully believe that if Axl had released 3-4 albums by now he that would have stopped a huge portion of the naysayers.

If Axl let this band put its imprint on GnR, then people would be debating which band put out better music. Instead of just arguing about whether they were a cover band or not.

It was Axl's biggest mistake imo. Not releasing anything for years made people bitter. The band that they loved was taken away from them, and it just looked bad. It looked like Axl destroyed it for nothing, even if that wasn't true.

So now there was nothing for the fans, only the great memories of what was gone by that time. When Axl had the band and the album, it was too late for many. The thought of a reunion was in the fans minds, they felt they deserved it cause it was just such a nasty ending.

No one ever thought there could be a Gn'R without Slash, and the problem was, that it felt like it ended cause of Axl, and that it didn't need to.

Years later, looking back, I think it was more complicated then that, but the silence and lack of albums created a shift in direction, and the fanbase, I think, will always be divided which makes me feel frustrated as a Gn'R fan.

I can understand why the old Guns fans feel the way they do about the whole situation, cause it's not like this current band operates normally, and a lot of the bitterness towards Axl comes from knowing what the potential was and for others what the potential still is, cause for the most part, it remains unfullfilled with only one album and an uncertain future.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Rovim