username Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) 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 February 27, 2013 by username Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisRoyalSweetness Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 at this point in the game, i think axl's in it to make money. that means playing shows, selling merch and licensing fees. get on board or fuck off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManetsBR Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 That's a brilliant idea. Axl seems to be in good terms with Robin, Brain, Duff and Izzy. Can you imagine a song written and recorded by them, Axl and Ron? Man... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volcano62 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I would love any new music but i would miss live performances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManetsBR Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 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 More sharing options...
Un42nutzly Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I think they should be an exclusive live band Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) I think they should be an exclusive live bandThey already are and it makes me sad. Edited February 27, 2013 by username Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NGOG Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 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 More sharing options...
username Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 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 More sharing options...
Un42nutzly Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Tour and release a single every month or so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingB2179 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I like this idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NGOG Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 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 More sharing options...
Facekicker Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 That's not the best way to build up a retirement slush fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicrawker Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 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 $$$.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.wa.T Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 A new single every six months would be cake, Guns is the one band at that level, that does shit for the fans. Touring is great when there is fresh material but this tour is getting old and stagnate. Plus the fact that their turning off diehard fans.The people who can do something about it fail on many levels and we, the fans who have been more then patient on so many levels get nothing but a stupid towel give away. Good job Fernando and Beta, your the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 I would support a period, of say, five years, where Axl focused solely on studio work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downzy Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) There is no money is new music, especially for legacy band like Guns who have a limited fan base these days,so Axl would financially bleed to death. Why do you think he is on this never ending tour? It is for the $$$..........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 February 28, 2013 by downzy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen8R Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 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 More sharing options...
Sigh Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 No. Not if Chinese Democracy is indicative of (1) what they would produce as a "studio band", and (2) indicative of how long it would take them to produce one album as a "studio band". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 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 More sharing options...
wasted Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 GNR dont seem like an ecperimentally band. Seems more song based with a view to live shows. Without those parameters... i mean Axls a great vocalist and showman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trqster Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Hell no! GnR is all about live shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Greatest live band of alltime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts