If the nugnr brand continues to sink in value, should axl consider legally acquiring a more popular band's name?

[HisRoyalSweetness]

If nugnr keeps having to move in the direction of more 'intimate' shows and can rely less and less on tours to fill the coffers, do you think axl should consider legally acquiring the name and brand of another, more popular band? Imagine the revenue possibilities if got the exclusive rights to a band name like U2 or Bon Jovi, who despite sucking, are able to make lots of money from tours. he wouldn't have to tour with that actual bam though. H could replace all the members with the current nugnr line up, preserving the magical formula he's finally perfected

Edited May 26, 2013 by HisRoyalSweetness

[Rustycage]

inb4 "popularity sucks!"

[HisRoyalSweetness]

Popularity does suck. But money rules. And think of it this way... If axl can make more money for playing the same shows then he has more to invest in the new album

Edited May 26, 2013 by HisRoyalSweetness

[pepsicoca]

that's a great idea, but i'm sure he's already thinking about it (there are several big names that are not being used, what a waste : led zeppelin, the beatles, etc.)

axl is a genius and a visionary. all the incredible things he accomplished in the last 15 years have proven so.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

He could still use the gnr name in brazil an Beirut obviously

[Coma16]

I wonder if Axl can join VR and have Slash fired.

[phaeryen]

In before the lock, or delete.

[fred_carston]

great thread

[HisRoyalSweetness]

Axl legally changed his own name to something cooler. Te president is there in lots of ways.

[luciusfunk]

Obvious cupcake thread, but also a bit funny. Axl, DJ, Bumblefoot, etc as Bon Jovi or U2?

[alfierose]

Just thought of an interesting example of name ownership. There is a British girl band called The Sugababes who were fairly big in the last decade or so. One by one over about 10 years all the original members left and were replaced then eventually the original three members all got together and called themselves some variation on the original name despite the other band still going. I think there was a bit of a hoo hah made about it because I think the name of the band was always owned by the management or label hence why they kept just replacing members.

Not entirely relevant I know but it just popped into my head and I thought I would share.

[The Glow Inc.]

No because the name is reunion leverage and Axl knows it. If GnR really went downhill to the point of becoming a non-profitable business, he'd still have the option of...you know...

[bran]

Just thought of an interesting example of name ownership. There is a British girl band called The Sugababes who were fairly big in the last decade or so. One by one over about 10 years all the original members left and were replaced then eventually the original three members all got together and called themselves some variation on the original name despite the other band still going. I think there was a bit of a hoo hah made about it because I think the name of the band was always owned by the management or label hence why they kept just replacing members.

Not entirely relevant I know but it just popped into my head and I thought I would share.

yeah that is pretty cool.

you would think bands with zero original members would be ultra rare, but there are quite a few.

[Randy Lahey]

Axl and Pitman should do a Milli Vanilli reboot. November Rain and Blame it On the Rain would sound epic back to back.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Randy Lahey

[sailaway]

Axl and Pitman shoud do a Milli Vanilli reboot. November Rain and Blame it On the Rain would sound epic back to back.

Don't put that pic in my head

So who gets to be "fab?"

[Randy Lahey]

Axl would have to get his corn rows out of storage. Axl would be Rob because he's a bit more sensitive.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Randy Lahey

[sailaway]

It's sad we both knew that without having to look it up.

[luciusfunk]

Just thought of an interesting example of name ownership. There is a British girl band called The Sugababes who were fairly big in the last decade or so. One by one over about 10 years all the original members left and were replaced then eventually the original three members all got together and called themselves some variation on the original name despite the other band still going. I think there was a bit of a hoo hah made about it because I think the name of the band was always owned by the management or label hence why they kept just replacing members.

Not entirely relevant I know but it just popped into my head and I thought I would share.

yeah that is pretty cool.

you would think bands with zero original members would be ultra rare, but there are quite a few.

There's a Christian band that started in 1999-ish and had a moderately successful debut. By the time they released their second studio album, they had zero original members.

[sailaway]

Remember Steely Dan ?

[Nosaj Thing]

I wonder if Axl can join VR and have Slash fired.

[liers]

AC/DC

Axl Rose, Chris Pitman / Dizzy Reed, Chris Pitman