Jump to content

Do you think Axl keeping the name of the band has backfired on him?

TombRaider

By TombRaider
in 2013

 Share

Has it backfired?  

18 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

TombRaider DEMI-GOD

TombRaider

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think Axl had legitimate reasons for wanting to keep the name of the band, albeit reasons that can only be fully understood if you see the world through Axl's eyes. From what I know, and as you know I am not a GnR historian, Axl basically thought the band was going to self-destruct at some point and he wanted GnR to live on. I can understand that.

However, do you think his decision to keep the name of the band has ultimately backfired not only on Axl, but also on current GnR?

I tend to avoid saying that Axl is GnR. And I'll tell you why. While it is true that Axl is the brain behind the band, it is also true that the music we fell in love with, and I mean the original albums, was not solely written by Axl.

As far as I know, the songs were the (succesful) result of a collective effort combining the talents of great musicians who had amazing chemistry. At least the songs on AFD were the result of said collective effort.

By keeping the name, Axl had an (almost) impossible task in his hands, namely, creating music worthy of the name GnR, on a par with it. And this is where the comparisons start.

It doesn't matter if I like Chinese Democracy or not, as you know, I do enjoy half of it. But you cannot blame anyone, who is not a hardcore fan, for comparing CD to the classic albums.

I think such comparisons are the inevitable result of having kept the name. It's a very simple equation, I think. So, this is GnR. Great. But wait, no Slash? No Duff? Huh?

At least in the world I live in, that is the most common reaction in people who are not hardcore fans and who do not worship the air Axl breathes. But I promised myself I would not attack anyone in this post, neither the band nor its fans.

It is my belief that if Axl had chosen to pick a different name and to call his band something else, burying GnR for good, even if he'd still decided to play the hits while on tour, there wouldn't have been (be) such a backlash against nu GnR.

What's more, if Axl had consistenly released music between GnR's demise and 2013, I think we'd all be supporting Axl in his efforts to move on, to do something else in his career. And we'd all see GnR as part of our past, as something that was good, amazing, but the past nonetheless.

It's the keeping of the name, the lack of music, the neverending touring with the classic songs and, from my point of view, Axl's efforts to distance himself from the original band, which has resulted in the backlash and the hate and the jokes.

Any thoughts?

As usual, I apologize for anything that may sound weird since this is not my first language.

Edited by TombRaider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfierose FRONTMAN

alfierose

Posted
Posted

I think there is an argument that it backfired on the fans to some extent but Axl probably not. It's allowed him the best platform to continue and make money, of course whether he has used this platform wisely is a whole other debate. If he suddenly decided to release a trio of albums tomorrow he is in a stronger position under the brand GnR than as anything else. He might be coasting a bit at the moment but it is the name GnR that means he can still do that and keep the lifestyle he is used to.. It was a shrewd move, morally controversial but shrewd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Un42nutzly DEMI-GOD

Un42nutzly

Posted
Posted (edited)

Half of the people I meet make fun and say how GNR is a joke. The other half say stuff like "Chinese Democracy was a pretty good album" and will start asking me who's still in the band, if another album is being written, how is Axl singing, etc.

With that said, no I don't think it has backfired but I do think there is still a chance to give more of a positive light towards Guns N Roses.

Edited by GNRFan53
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dalsh327 LEGEND

dalsh327

Posted
Posted

As far as what happened with GNR and the direction it took, the backfire happened in 2002. I do think a lot of people gave up on the band that year.

I do think Axl used the GNR name as a safety net to sell tickets and have a record deal. As a solo artist, I doubt they would've backed him unless he had a solo career on the level of Phil Collins, even though I think Iovine would have worked with him... but Timbaland, man, Timbaland....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Un42nutzly DEMI-GOD

Un42nutzly

Posted
Posted

As far as what happened with GNR and the direction it took, the backfire happened in 2002. I do think a lot of people gave up on the band that year.

I do think Axl used the GNR name as a safety net to sell tickets and have a record deal. As a solo artist, I doubt they would've backed him unless he had a solo career on the level of Phil Collins, even though I think Iovine would have worked with him... but Timbaland, man, Timbaland....

timbaland.... Ugh
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Un42nutzly DEMI-GOD

Un42nutzly

Posted
Posted (edited)

well... it's not.

Ok, that is your opinion and I respect that.

so... you're saying a new album is being written?

Oh thought you were saying that towards the album, ChiDem being good.

And nah, doubt it.

Edited by GNRFan53
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest NGOG

Guest NGOG

Posted
Posted

This has been discussed to death with nobody really agreeing on a definitive answer. Ultimately Axl kept the name and that's that. Is there any point in this hypothetical debate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TombRaider DEMI-GOD

TombRaider

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

@NGOG I'm relatively new here, so of course I'm going to bring up stuff that's already been discussed. Sorry, I didn't know I needed your permission. Of course, you can choose not to read and reply to threads that have been talked about to death. See? It's that easy.

Edited by TombRaider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest NGOG

Guest NGOG

Posted
Posted

@NGOG I'm relatively new here, so of course I'm going to bring up stuff that's already been discussed. Sorry, I didn't know I needed your permission. Of course, you can choose not to read and reply to threads that have been talked about to death. See? It's that easy.

I think that's the problem and I mean absolutely no offence by that. You're rehashing things that have not just been discussed before, but literally to death. This particular big question ultimately goes nowhere. Anybody inclined to criticisms of Axl will say he created an avante-garde solo project and then a GNR tribute neither of which deserve the legitimacy of being GNR. Pro-Axl opinion will say it is a good thing that he opted not to leave GNR in the nineties opting to resurrect it with a totally new image and direction. Then there are those in the middle who would argue the GNR done more harm than good for Axl and actually stifled his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest NGOG

Guest NGOG

Posted
Posted

I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue that being in GNR stifled Axl's career. That's a new one.

Have you been living in a cave while we had these debates? It is definitely not a new idea that Axl may have been better without the burden of the name artistically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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