Damn_Smooth Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 I would like GN'R more if Axl would replace himself with someone that is willing to put some effort into singing. Especially if the only goal of the band is to ride the nostalgia tour for the rest of its existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prettytiedup88 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Bizzare question - If Axl replaced himself...the band wouldn't be GNR?! Axl IS Guns n' Roses. He's got a talented bunch of players behind him sure and alot of people on here are willing to support this version of the band, but cut Axl out of it then plain and simple its not GNR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris 55 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Bizzare question - If Axl replaced himself...the band wouldn't be GNR?! Axl IS Guns n' Roses. He's got a talented bunch of players behind him sure and alot of people on here are willing to support this version of the band, but cut Axl out of it then plain and simple its not GNR.yeah this fact seems to be lost on everyone on the thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liers Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Depends who. I would be open to bumblefoot, even pitman, replacing axl, but I wouldn't want someone outside the band to come in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machinegunner Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Like a Ferrari without an engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trqster Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Mixed feelings about that one... If Axl decided to quit Gn'R to start his own proper solo band, I'd gain a lot of respect for him, but be sad at the same time that'd I'd probably never see Axl perform again under the Gn'R name (bearing in mind it's not real Gn'R...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TombRaider Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 No Axl, no Gn'R. A Gn'R song must contain Axl's voice.This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cbgnr666 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 (edited) Billy Corgan mentioned he might do this with the pumpkins in an interview I listened too recently, he'll just continue to write the music and produce.As for gnr without Axl,it wouldn't work for me,or in general imo. Edited July 10, 2013 by cbgnr666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MYWIFEMYLIFE Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Axl is not only the voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquor & Whores Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Axl is GNR, GNR is Axlsimple as that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 I would like GN'R more if Axl would replace himself with someone that is willing to put some effort into singing. Especially if the only goal of the band is to ride the nostalgia tour for the rest of its existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niceguy Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Yes, the same people here who ridicule Slash while sucking DJ's dick will also ridicule Axl once he's dead and replaced by someone else that Fernando hires.GNR will always, always be touring, even after every last original member has died. Who do you think gets control of the GNR estate once Axl kicks the bucket? Beta and her family. And you can bet your ass they'll send "GNR" on tour, fronted by a new singer, and there will still be morons here who say "Man, this new singer is so much better than Axl. Just wait, they're gonna release Silkworms soon! Silkworms is the greatest thing ever created by any human anywhere in the history of the universe! Silkworms!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
November_rain Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 No. Axl or GTFO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 The only Axl-less Guns N' Roses which I would consider legit would be, a one with the Appetite or the 1990-91line-up, with Izzy and Duff sharing vocal duties. Obviously it would be just a low key thing and less spectacular than, with W. Axl Rose, but I would certainly consider it 'Guns N' Roses' and would look forward to an album with that group. With Stradlin writing the lion's share, I think they could have produced an excellent album when the Project was beginning (before Weiland got involved) - like a GN'R album with a lot of songs resembling 14 Years and Dust N' Bones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Confusing and a bit of a contradiction.People fight and go crazy saying that GnR is GnR. That DJ, BBF, Fortus, Stinson, Dizzy, Pitman and whomever the drummer is at the time ARE THE REAL GUNS N ROSES.So if that is the case, why wouldn't those guys still be Guns n Roses if one member left the band? Sort of ruins all your past arguments about the current band being the "real" guns n roses.So if Axl leaves, then the rest of the guys aren't GnR..................they are just hired hands? For me personally, I couldn't care less about the name of the band. I just care about the music that the band produces. The reason I loved the old songs wasn't because of the name "guns n roses" or who was in the band. When I listen to music I listen to "songs" not artists.Would I care if Axl quit and the new guys carried on under the GnR name? Not a bit. I don't understand why people care about a name (unless you are in the band). NOTHING Axl does now, or the "new" GnR does without Axl would have ANY effect on how awesome all the old songs are.I would just love to hear new music from all of these guys, in whatever form or combination it might be. THe more rock music produced the better for rock fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Confusing and a bit of a contradiction.People fight and go crazy saying that GnR is GnR. That DJ, BBF, Fortus, Stinson, Dizzy, Pitman and whomever the drummer is at the time ARE THE REAL GUNS N ROSES.So if that is the case, why wouldn't those guys still be Guns n Roses if one member left the band? Sort of ruins all your past arguments about the current band being the "real" guns n roses.So if Axl leaves, then the rest of the guys aren't GnR..................they are just hired hands? For me personally, I couldn't care less about the name of the band. I just care about the music that the band produces. The reason I loved the old songs wasn't because of the name "guns n roses" or who was in the band. When I listen to music I listen to "songs" not artists.Would I care if Axl quit and the new guys carried on under the GnR name? Not a bit. I don't understand why people care about a name (unless you are in the band). NOTHING Axl does now, or the "new" GnR does without Axl would have ANY effect on how awesome all the old songs are.I would just love to hear new music from all of these guys, in whatever form or combination it might be. THe more rock music produced the better for rock fans. So damn right.Proof that the deluded, misguided, pathetic, psychotic, blind Axl fans are laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Nosaj It does seem to poke a huge hole in their constant defense of the current line-up being the "real" GnR!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtydane Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 They did replace axl. With Scott weiland. And it sounded pretty damn good. They actually played alot of new material too which was nice. Seriously, Is this really wat it's come to? Discussing whether or not we would listen to these hired hands with a lead singer that wasnt axl, and continuing to use the gnr name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 It is a sort of mute point as we have never even heard what this new band sound like (from a songwriting/studio aspect) with Axl let alone without Axl. They play alright live I suppose (except Ashba) but none of us know whether they can write together or not. To me, GN'R should write and release records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liers Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Like a Ferrari without an engine.If someone gave me a ferrari without an engine, I wouldn't complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvH Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Stop with the stupid "GN'R died in 1993", you know it has nothing to do with the thread. We get it, you are a purist or whatever you wanna call it.To answer the question, obviously I won't. Dizzy is not enough to keep me behind GN'R. If Axl leaves, GN'R ceases to exist as an alive band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtydane Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Like a Ferrari without an engine. If someone gave me a ferrari without an engine, I wouldn't complain.Nobody would. But replacing axl and calling it gnr while charging gnr prices for tickets is a different story. It's bs wat they charge as it is, and that's with axl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Stop with the stupid "GN'R died in 1993", you know it has nothing to do with the thread. We get it, you are a purist or whatever you wanna call it.To answer the question, obviously I won't. Dizzy is not enough to keep me behind GN'R. If Axl leaves, GN'R ceases to exist as an alive band.False. GNR did not "die" in 1993. GNR had their last performance in 1993. GNR died somewhere in the late 90s, we're not really sure when though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmapelian Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Stop with the stupid "GN'R died in 1993", you know it has nothing to do with the thread. We get it, you are a purist or whatever you wanna call it.To answer the question, obviously I won't. Dizzy is not enough to keep me behind GN'R. If Axl leaves, GN'R ceases to exist as an alive band.False. GNR did not "die" in 1993. GNR had their last performance in 1993. GNR died somewhere in the late 90s, we're not really sure when though. Sometime in 97/98? Whenever duff and matt completed the mass exodus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvH Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Stop with the stupid "GN'R died in 1993", you know it has nothing to do with the thread. We get it, you are a purist or whatever you wanna call it.To answer the question, obviously I won't. Dizzy is not enough to keep me behind GN'R. If Axl leaves, GN'R ceases to exist as an alive band.False. GNR did not "die" in 1993. GNR had their last performance in 1993. GNR died somewhere in the late 90s, we're not really sure when though. That's your point of view. You're not forced to repeat it in each and every thread you post in, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts