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

[AxlRose14]

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.

CD was a great record. Try listening moron

[DieselDaisy]

My main criticism of Axl is, not that he took over the band, but that he does absolutely nothing with the name once talking over the band. Democracy simply took too long - all of the momentum was killed - and we were promised a second album in the Loder chat. Also, the best line-up of the new band (Bucket,Brain, Finck) disapeared because they got absolutely sick of Axl's bullshit. Was the purpose all along, in getting the name, to play vegas hits sets?

Edited December 30, 2012 by DieselDaisy

[izzydoezit]

I too think that if Axl had released a few records by now, we would be able to compare nuGNR to GNR. With 1 so-so album like CD and the members that made CD mostly gone, there isn't much to compare.

But my OP question, was why Axl lead the situation like this. I am not sure that he simply lost control and that events lead him to this shit. He must have had a motive.

[DieselDaisy]

Egotism. Look at Axl during the Illusion period, overdubs, fifty million costume changes, huge ramps, 10 minute music videos - the guy literally believed he was gnr. So when he took over the band legally it was merely - to Axl's thinking - formalising, legally, an already existing reality.

[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.

my favorite randy quote for some time. thread/

I stole it from Marked for Death.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Randy Lahey

[Rovim]

I too think that if Axl had released a few records by now, we would be able to compare nuGNR to GNR. With 1 so-so album like CD and the members that made CD mostly gone, there isn't much to compare.

But my OP question, was why Axl lead the situation like this. I am not sure that he simply lost control and that events lead him to this shit. He must have had a motive.

This is what you're not getting: It wasn't just Axl that was steering the ship. Every original member was pulling in a different direction. Even Duff said not long ago how he now realizes that he had a part in it too.

I think Axl did what he thought was right for Guns, he was the leader, but he didn't have all the power when Slash was still around.

The truth is we don't know enough to know the 'why' here. My guess is they were on an ego trip thinking they knew what was the right direction to go in, but they couldn't agree on it and they tried to force whatever they saw in their head on one another and it just self destructed.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Rovim

[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.

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.

I'm not an Axl or Slash fanboy, so it's easy for me to sit on the fence and say in heinsight it was immoral, and moral if the new band had've stuck together and released a few quality albums. The morality argument is hard. Pink Floyd is a more interesting situation because Barrett was kicked out before Dark Side of the Moon, and then Waters pretty much became Axl, and then did a Slash and left - thinking that Floyd wouldn't dare go on without him, and then tried to sue them because they did.

[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.

I'm not an Axl or Slash fanboy, so it's easy for me to sit on the fence and say in heinsight it was immoral, and moral if the new band had've stuck together and released a few quality albums. The morality argument is hard. Pink Floyd is a more interesting situation because Barrett was kicked out before Dark Side of the Moon, and then Waters pretty much became Axl, and then did a Slash and left - thinking that Floyd wouldn't dare go on without him, and then tried to sue them because they did.

But isn't that what Slash thought too? I think he believed Axl will welcome him back after he quit. He couldn't see Axl carrying on with Guns. Maybe that's why they signed over the name. It doesn't matter who owns the name, cause there is no Guns N' Roses without them right? hmmm...

[MB.]

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.

That's so well said and so true!

He's a nut.

This is a reason as well.

Further more, pride and probably the label.

[jimb0]

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.

I'm not an Axl or Slash fanboy, so it's easy for me to sit on the fence and say in heinsight it was immoral, and moral if the new band had've stuck together and released a few quality albums. The morality argument is hard. Pink Floyd is a more interesting situation because Barrett was kicked out before Dark Side of the Moon, and then Waters pretty much became Axl, and then did a Slash and left - thinking that Floyd wouldn't dare go on without him, and then tried to sue them because they did.

But isn't that what Slash thought too? I think he believed Axl will welcome him back after he quit. He couldn't see Axl carrying on with Guns. Maybe that's why they signed over the name. It doesn't matter who owns the name, cause there is no Guns N' Roses without them right? hmmm...

Didn't Slash quit because Axl drew up a contract he didn't like or agree with?

[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.

I'm not an Axl or Slash fanboy, so it's easy for me to sit on the fence and say in heinsight it was immoral, and moral if the new band had've stuck together and released a few quality albums. The morality argument is hard. Pink Floyd is a more interesting situation because Barrett was kicked out before Dark Side of the Moon, and then Waters pretty much became Axl, and then did a Slash and left - thinking that Floyd wouldn't dare go on without him, and then tried to sue them because they did.

But isn't that what Slash thought too? I think he believed Axl will welcome him back after he quit. He couldn't see Axl carrying on with Guns. Maybe that's why they signed over the name. It doesn't matter who owns the name, cause there is no Guns N' Roses without them right? hmmm...

Didn't Slash quit because Axl drew up a contract he didn't like or agree with?

I don't think that was the reason. Never heard of that before.

[username]

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

Being batcrap crazy.

[Rustycage]

I don't think that was the reason. Never heard of that before.

Sarcasm?

[Rovim]

I don't think that was the reason. Never heard of that before.

Sarcasm?

Nope.

[Rustycage]

Um, yeah, Axl gave Slash a contract making him a GNR employee and that was the final straw.

[Rovim]

Um, yeah, Axl gave Slash a contract making him a GNR employee and that was the final straw.

Source?

Slash talked about Axl being late all the time, and Guns being a dictatorship, and also mentioned creative differences.

I don't remember he ever said the contract making him an employee thing was the reason for it.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Rovim

[izzydoezit]

Slash's book , Duff's book.

[Rovim]

Slash's book , Duff's book.

I know Izzy said Axl tried to do it with him, but I don't think it was the reason for Slash quitting Guns.

[Rustycage]

Slash's book , Duff's book.

I know Izzy said Axl tried to do it with him, but I don't think it was the reason for Slash quitting Guns.

It was the reason. It wasn't the ONLY reason but it was the straw that broke the Camel's back.

[saber_]

Slash couldn't hang with Axl when it came to the mindgames. Slash pussied out and quit. Instead of challenging Axl. But of course he signed over the name in a heroin stupor years before, so he sorta hamstrung himself in that regard.

[Rovim]

Slash's book , Duff's book.

I know Izzy said Axl tried to do it with him, but I don't think it was the reason for Slash quitting Guns.

It was the reason. It wasn't the ONLY reason but it was the straw that broke the Camel's back.

You say it was the reason, well I'm willing to listen. Can you prove it with a source?

Did Slash ever say that anywhere? That it was a main reason, that contract? Making him just an employee of Guns was the reason for quitting?

Not trying to be argumentative here, but can you show me where he said that?

[Rustycage]

Yet he "took 15 years of Axl's life." According to Axl. If that were true, that's a pretty rough mind fuck.

[izzydoezit]

It's funny how when it comes to discussing why everyone left we keep overanalyzing semantics and never look at basics. Basics such as that the lead singer of a band should show up for practise, rehearsal and songwriting sessions.

[saber_]

Slash was butthurt because both Duff and Axl rejected his hokey songs.

[Roush]

Slash is a hater, bro.