Bono Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Dead serious and it's something I've been saying for years. The band is too damn awesome to be doing nothing. It's obvious what's holding them back is Axl and Team Brazil. It's been that way since the beginning. So in some crazy world if this band was allowed to carry on as Guns N' Roses without Axl Rose would you support it? After all these guys have paid their dues right? Some of you feel they should be inducted as GnR so why not let them take the name and actually carry on the legacy seeing as though Axl has no interest in doing it.I for one would think its asinine that they keep the name BUT I'd be extremely interested in hearing their album. Without Axl I'm sure we'd have an album within 6 months. Obviously it would never work as the general public and media would never accept it. But would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estrangedtwat Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Yeah, I did. It was called Velvet Revolver. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoSoRose Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 id totally be interested in an album by the band minus axl. it wouldnt be gnr but they kick ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bono Posted October 30, 2013 Author Share Posted October 30, 2013 Yeah, I did. It was called Velvet Revolver.Exactly. It was called VELVET REVOLVER and that band has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estrangedtwat Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Oh, I see what you're getting at.You're somehow implying that Slash, Duff, and Matt are "less worthy" to be considered an Axl-less GNR than the current line-up of session musicians that sometimes tours as Axl's backing band. The "band" that has never released a single note of music as Guns N' Roses.If you're seriously asking if I would support that collection of clowns that has contributed NOTHING original to GNR's legacy, especially if they had the audacity to consider themselves "Guns N' Roses" without Fat Axl prancing in front of them....then no. No I would not support them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Towelie Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) The "band" that has never released a single note of music as Guns N' RosesMaybe you missed a little-known release called Chinese Democracy which featured all but one of the current line-up? Edited October 30, 2013 by Towelie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estrangedtwat Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Ohhhhhhhh.....you mean the CD written by Buckethead, Robin, Paul Tobias, Brain and Josh Freese? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Towelie Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Ohhhhhhhh.....you mean the CD written by Buckethead, Robin, Paul Tobias, Brain and Josh Freese?You conveniently left out the writing credits of Axl Rose, Dizzy Reed, Chris Pitman and Tommy Stinson who, song-for-song were responsible for eight of the fourteen tracks on CD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estrangedtwat Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 And DJ? Fortus? Ashba? You know, the THREE guitarists that make up the current "band?" What songs have they written, recorded and released for GNR?Oh yeah. None. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 A Slash/Stradlin/McKagan/Adler line-up would certainly have a lot more legitimacy than an Axl/bunch of guys line-up, so yes, I think I would. A lot however would be riding on the singer. Just as Axl has failed to replace Slash with his flawed 'Nugnr experiment', so that band could potentially fail by picking the wrong guy. I am personally a fan of Myles but I am willing to concede that a Myles fronted GN'R would turn off many people instantly. I personally was not that keen on Weiland. Who else is there? He is difficult to replace, the ginger headed one, isn't he?Personally I would like Stradlin and Duff to sing and make an excellent bar room record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Towelie Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) And DJ? Fortus? Ashba? You know, the THREE guitarists that make up the current "band?" What songs have they written, recorded and released for GNR?Oh yeah. None.Well, for starters DJ and Ashba are the same person.It was kind of difficult for DJ to appear on the album seeing as he didn't join the band till a year after the albums release. Whilst Ron doesn't have any writing credits, his playing is all over the album. Plenty of bands have members that only play their respective instruments and don't contribute to the writing process. I don't believe Steven Adler contributed a single note to the composition of AFD, but that doesn't diminish his contribution as a drummer. Edited October 30, 2013 by Towelie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bono Posted October 30, 2013 Author Share Posted October 30, 2013 For fuck sakes. Is it really that hard to comprehend what is being asked you guys. I am saying if Axl left and these guys carried on as Guns N Roses would you support it or have zero interest without Axl. Would you turn your back on them or still be interested in hearing what they have to offer. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the old band whatsoever. And OBVIOUSLY none of us would like the idea of them keeping the name but that is not the major point here. Unreal. Yeah Im somehow implying that the original band isèt as worthy as this new band to be an Axless GnR.... Unbeliveable that anybody would even begin to think that is what I was getting at. Then again this is a GnR board. Common sense need not apply.The replies I just read have have seriously put a dent in my faith in humanity. Delete the thread. Its obvious where this is gonna go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) There's nothing stopping them leaving GNR getting a new singer and starting a band.CD proved Axl brings a lot of what I like, especially on SOD, TWAT, Catcher, ITW, Madagascar, TIL, Prostitute, Better, even Chi Dem - Axl brings something to those songs only he seems to do that kind of thing. I can't see Ron bringing in SOD 2 or Slash or anyone. That's what I've always wondered, is Axl the one who molds songs like Jungle, SCOM, Paradise City, Rocket Queen, Civil War, Nov Rain, Estranged, SOD, TWAT, Catcher. In some cases a guitarist brought something in, but he's got some way of doing it. It's a little bit bigger or more OTT than others might do it. Like Annatasia on Slash's album, it has some potential, but goes nowhere, whereas Axl would have added some parts and giving it a direction home. More of a journey than a loop,So Axl might be holding them back from just recording some material and throwing it out. But to make it GNR it would have to go through his filter to be worked on, so it was GNR.I like the idea of GNR carrying on as kind of like a franchise like Disney. Once Axl dies they'll still tour with a trained up Axl impersonator and TB, maybe Fernando's kids will inherit this golbal brand. Once the music industry is close and all we do is experience past history as holograms we might not need stadium shows though.Unless within GNR they just step outside it and throw a curveball and it's like just something else with Axl singing. Shackler's is close to that, Scraped maybe, even ITW, but it still could only be GNR.So No, they need Axl to make it GNR at this point. VR didn't sound GNR but CD does. Edited October 30, 2013 by wasted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highvoltage Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I would probably turn my back on them, yeah.If they continued under a different name, I would support them with keen interest. I don't know how close they are personally though, I don't think you'd get them all in a room together if Axl was out of the picture really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDemocracyRose Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 The voice is everything.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trqster Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Guns n'Roses with Axl & friends is a great cover band, but Gn'R without Axl is nothing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfierose Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I would support their wish to do their own thing and would probably give any music a listen but I expect I would lose interest on a day to day basis. For me Axl isn't replaceable (frustrating as that can be sometimes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chunder Monkey Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 So in some crazy world if this band was allowed to carry on as Guns N' Roses without Axl Rose would you support it? Yes and No.I wouldn't support the concept of still naming it "Guns N' Roses".To me for most bands to really be the band you must have at least the traditional lead singer and lead guitarist - unless those people are unavailable due to death. I can put up with modern GNR being GNR as at least Axl was a huge part of their media image, and the psychology of the songs and so on. In the same way I could be ok with the UYI guys being GNR as although Axl would be missing everything else would be there.But to do that with the modern band is sort of going down a generation again. Not that I don't love these guys - but the connection to the GNR brand is too nebulas to sustain without Axl - aside from play the songs live what have they done - most of them are not even the key writers on CD - which while an album I love - is not the key album to the public in terms of GNR. So i think calling it GNR with no Axl and just the modern guys would be even worse with the public than calling the current band GNR - which is already 'wrong' to the most people I think.However, under a new name, I'd totally support them. I think it would have some great guitar parts and be fun to listen to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmapelian Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 If there was no axl, there'd be no guns n roses - they'd be a gnr tribute/cover band - as ifthere not already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lies They Tell Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Honestly, yes... IF the music was still just as good, or even almost as good. (which I very much doubt) But to me, it's all about the music. So if GNR without Axl would still make music that I love, then why wouldn't I support it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wfuckinga Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 FUCK NOAxl IS Guns N' Roses. If they all formed a band with Tommy, Ron and Dizzy singing I'd most lilely be a big fan, but they shouldn't call themselves GNR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussTCB Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I would probably turn my back on them, yeah.If they continued under a different name, I would support them with keen interest. I don't know how close they are personally though, I don't think you'd get them all in a room together if Axl was out of the picture really. Agree with all of this.Bono-I for one understood your question to begin with (honestly not sure what was so hard to understand). I pretty much be where HV is on it; I'd be interested to see what happens or what material they produced, but I couldn't see seeing it as Guns N' Roses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magisme Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 The only reason I know who any of these guys are (minus Stinson) is that they're in Axl's band. The only reason I pay attention to anything they do is that they're in Axl's band. Take Axl out of the equation and I'll go back to ignoring each and every one of them, no matter what they call themselves. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I think at this point the GNR name is bigger than any of them. So if you got a new singer who could kick it, then let's go. Imagine GNR touring Cambodia in 2050 with Axl Rose 0.2 (name changed by deed poll)Axl could be controlling dance moves remotely from his oxygen tent. Other option is holograms. Once A4D is out that could be the start of the Use Your Hologram Tour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvH Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Sadly, I think I now endure GN'R more than I support them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts