Jump to content

Should Guns n' Roses become a "studio band"?


username

Recommended Posts

I've been thinking, would it make sense for GnR to do what the Beatles did - stop doing live shows and purely get into recording studio material?

I think it does. It would reduce the strain on Axl's voice, allow multiple takes and it wouldn't be 100% necessary to have a steady band. Axl can be the steady factor much like Trent is in NIN. It would keep his options open in working with a variety of artists (Bucket, Robin, possibly even Duff and whoever is interested *coughbrianmaycough*). It would bring focus and hopefully a lot of new material for the fans.

Who's with me on this one, assuming they'd produce an album at least every 2 years.

Edited by username
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if they would do on NIN terms, which I believe to be the best, there would be some tours. They toured on 2007, 2009 and there will be a new tour this year. All with different line-ups. Axl would be able to gather different bands from tour to tour with a big number of great musicians avaiable.

I think people would even stop mocking him so much over the Guns N' Roses name if he did that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have considered this before. It would have been the most viable alternative when Slash left. I think in the studio is where Axl is in his prime. Where he can hide whatever appearance issues he feels he has, airbrush vocal problems with modern technology. He is an absolute artist in the sense of music. Plus it would eradicate the need to develop a concrete representation of the band unlike with a tour line-up, GN'R could become a studio Nine Inch Nails.

That said, a majority would never support this. Some lean towards Axl's art and are content to embrace that art in a simple CD player, whereas others prefer to see that art in a spectacular environment like the live production.

Then there's the media element. It would add cred to the reclusive, Howard Hughes persona they often tried to portray. All that considered, the best approach is a combination of both. Be a normal band. Make a record, then tour what you've made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that considered, the best approach is a combination of both. Be a normal band. Make a record, then tour what you've made.

That's having your cake and eating it too. I've given up on that personally. Plus I think it would be better for Axl's voice, maybe focusing more on new material and putting it out like this (as more of an Axl project and many collaborators) might even restore some of the GnR legacy. If it's done properly and the new material is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that considered, the best approach is a combination of both. Be a normal band. Make a record, then tour what you've made.

That's having your cake and eating it too. I've given up on that personally. Plus I think it would be better for Axl's voice, maybe focusing more on new material and putting it out like this (as more of an Axl project and many collaborators) might even restore some of the GnR legacy. If it's done properly and the new material is good.

I think Axl has adopted a policy of 'tour when touring' to prevent unwarranted stress. Therefore, a new record will not happen while on tour as some people advocate.

Both are separate phases. At present, we are in a tour phase, Axl will probably then move to sort out the deal with the label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A new single every six months would be cake, Guns is the one band at that level, that does shit for the fans.

Touring is great when there is fresh material but this tour is getting old and stagnate. Plus the fact that their turning off diehard fans.

The people who can do something about it fail on many levels and we, the fans who have been more then patient on so many levels get nothing but a stupid towel give away. Good job Fernando and Beta, your the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no money is new music, especially for legacy band like Guns who have a limited fan base these days,so Axl would financially bleed to death.

Why do you think he is on this never ending tour? It is for the $$$..........

Exactly. There's not enough money in recorded music for bands like GNR. It's not the 1960s anymore. As someone who's seen the band 14 times in the last 12 years, I'd be happy if they retired to the studio. But that's not going to happen unless people are willing to pay for recorded music again. Edited by downzy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking, would it make sense for GnR to do what the Beatles did - stop doing live shows and purely get into recording studio material?

I think it does. It would reduce the strain on Axl's voice, allow multiple takes and it wouldn't be 100% necessary to have a steady band. Axl can be the steady factor much like Trent is in NIN. It would keep his options open in working with a variety of artists (Bucket, Robin, possibly even Duff and whoever is interested *coughbrianmaycough*). It would bring focus and hopefully a lot of new material for the fans.

Who's with me on this one, assuming they'd produce an album at least every 2 years.

I'm with you. I posted pretty much the same thing back in like 2006 but people hated the idea for the most part. I've always thought doing the Trent thing was best for him and would have been much much better than dragging the GNR name through the shitter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think turning them into a solely studio group is a bit of extreme. I think what we all want he, the supporters, the 'haters' - the band in fact - is some significent studio time. Axl cannot even be bothered to release the democracy outakes so, how can we expect him to write and record albums at a swift space as a studio artist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...