Would it benefit Axl to drop the GnR name?

[username]

Given the state of the band, would it be a smart move (business-wise) to drop the GnR name?

I'm not talking about the whole "Axl is/isn't GnR" deal here. I don't care whether anybody thinks Axl has the right to use it or not. The fact is he just is. I'm more interested in whether or not people think dropping the name would help Axl's success or not.

Personally I see a lot of advantages in dropping it. It'd take the pressure off to live up to the name, creating a sense of new and with that more artistic freedom. It's stop the comparisons and the whole new/old GnR deal. More importantly, it'd allow Axl to work with a changing set of musicians. There's be less fuss about a revolving-door band and more open doors for collaborations. Live, Axl could still do GnR tunes, just not lean on them. Pretty much the same way Slash does at his concerts. I'd find it refreshing and I think it'd get more and easier acceptance of new material. It'd be a fresh start from the artistic rut they've been in and it might even make releasing material easier. Yes, it'd also have a downside when it comes to ticket sales, but the pro's probably outweigh the cons for me. On one hand it'd require more promotion and just using the GnR name, but I think it'd also have a lot of clear advantages. It'd even provide some closure on GnR as an entity AND leave an option for a reunion in the future (although I don't believe in one) open without the downside of "dumping" the new guys.

I a nutshell the GnR name just brings a LOT of baggage with it. Basically, I think "The Axl Rose Project" would open more doors than close them.

Opinions?

Ps.

Please don't turn this into another "Axl vs Slash" / "Axl is or isn't GnR" / "This is or isn't the real GnR" argument. I'm interested in whether people think it'd benefit Axl or not.

Edited December 11, 2013 by username

[feconroses]

Totally agree with you, plus, we would hear a lot more of Axl Rose if he goes solo.

[Apollo]

If Axl was going to be active, then I'd say keep the name.

But if he just wants to occasionally tour and put out one album every decade - then drop the name.

Or, if he wants to experiment and put out whatever he wants - say a piano album, a hip hop remix album, a techno album - then dropping the name allows him the freedom to do that.

I don't understand why he fought so hard to keep the name if he was only going to use it for touring purposes. I had no problem with him keeping the name. Just don't get why he didn't use it more.

[Padme]

Now it´s too late. Sure Axl could change his mind. But a name is not something someone can just storage in a basement. It would be another legal mess with ex members and maybe with record company as well.

[saber_]

It might benefit him in terms of taking less heat from his critics. Commercially though, as some of you are fond of pointing out, the name is worth something. How much though, is up for debate. It would depend on how Axl approached a solo career. I guess I didn't really answer the question, sorry.

He won't give it up, so we'll never know anyway, but it's fun to speculate, I get it.

[Roush]

In 1999? Sure. Nowadays, the name is the only thing going for him. So he may as well keep it.

[RussTCB]

I voted "Nay" but what I mean to say is "Not at this point"

[Chunder Monkey]

I think it's too late in the game for that.

Had he developed the Chinese Democracy that way from the start I think it could have been marketed more along the lines of Velvet Revolver - that is making a big deal out of his GNR heritage but also pushing the concept that it's a fresh new sound and that the audience should expect a modern sound and not the traditional stuff.

I think this would have helped:

* Axl seem like less crazy/assholish to the media (less of the "he thinks he can be GNR alone" or "He stole the name")

* Less hostility from the fanbase. A lot of people would still want reunion - but they would not feel the sense of outrage that he's fucking with the legacy that many currently have.

* General public would be more open to a "what else can you sound like" - record as they were with VR - in that there would be less anger if it came out like NiN and not AFD. So i think the audience would be a little more open minded.

Then again the downside would be increased expectation to stand on it's own 2 feet.

Much like how a VR setlist was mostly new material with only a few GNR/STP songs a night to appease the audience...it would have to be the same - full on CD setlist with maybe just like 2 GNR songs or something at the end. And obviously a WAR show may not sell markets like south america as effectively as billing it as GNR.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Chunder Monkey

[Lim666]

"[...]dropping the name became suicide" - Axl 12/2008 about financial issues

there is your answer!

[Roush]

Ah, forgot about those chats. That was actually pretty cool of Axl.

Instead of posturing on David Letterman with the typical "buy my record" banter, he gave the media the middle finger, waited 'til after release, and chilled online to give us thoughtful, sincere commentary.

[aArief178]

I thought Axl had drop the name of guns n roses and take it with him based on the documents slash and duff signed

:s

[magisme]

He'd gain respect, I think. But only if he released new music. If he came out tomorrow and announced he was retiring GNR and that the first Axl Rose solo album was set for release in the first half of 2014, that would be fuckin' sweet.

[Coma16]

Would Trent drop NIN? Silly question.

[dalsh327]

“People challenge the reason to continue under the name. I think what’s particular to this group. is Jeff, Mike and Nicole were all fans of The Smashing Pumpkins years before they met me,so they have their own experience of what Smashing Pumpkins meant to them, in a special way. They saw the band as distinct and unique for a particular set of reasons-and all three of their reasons are different. So they bring to the table a different issue of integrity, which is, ‘If I’m gonna be in this circus, and you’re gonna continue this circus, well here’s my vision of where this still works for me,’ -because I would want that from them. So, what is it that we’re continuing? We’re continuing a particular approach to music that is singular, and is almost without peer in rock ‘n’ roll history.” He adds, “I don’t have a problem seeing the circus and they go, ‘It’s our 107th year!’ So they bring out the elephants, but then they do the new thing. That’s the way I look at it-we trot out the elephants and then we trot out the new thing.” - Billy Corgan

I

[Guest NGOG]

Of course it would benefit Axl to lose the stigma of being GNR. He could finally release music without the Appetite purists crying it doesn't sound like GNR HURR DURR.

But he shouldn't. Why? Because nobody else is more qualified to put a band together and label it GNR.

[Apollo]

At the end of the day, if he is only going to release one album every 15 years does it really matter what he calls his band?

[IRanOutOfIdeas]

Kinda late for this question now isn't it? Doesn't mean too much now.

But I do agree it would've benefited him if he did it a decade ago. I personally wouldn't fuck with a glorious legacy. More importantly though, CD would not have so much slander if the GNR name wasn't bogging it down.

I've always thought that if Axl went solo he could go by "WAR of the Roses" or something like that.

[pestilence]

it may have benifited him before releasing the album, but now he would only be accused of trying to increase record sales and appease the public

[WhazUp]

- Less controvery among GNR fans

- Less legal troubles

- Less preconceived notions of what an album made by Axl should be

I vote yes. However he really should have dropped the name in the 90's

[Chewbacca]

Now it´s too late. Sure Axl could change his mind. But a name is not something someone can just storage in a basement. It would be another legal mess with ex members and maybe with record company as well.

Precisely.

[classicrawker]

At the end of the day, if he is only going to release one album every 15 years does it really matter what he calls his band?

because Axl is no dummy and knows how valuable the Guns brand name is and will continue to milk it to the last drop IMHO.........

[ARBeast]

At the end of the day, if he is only going to release one album every 15 years does it really matter what he calls his band?

This. Could not agree more.

If he's not going to release music this is all irrelevant..oh wait.

[hudsonsaul]

I've gone with yes.

Not because I'm pessimistic, trolling, or want the end of GnR (nor am I one hooked on the old lineup or wanting a reunion).

Personally I think that financially, it would be a mistake and a struggle. GnR name still sells tickets, and still sell tours, and still make money that I assume manages to maintain Axl's lifestyle, entourage and what not. So that would be tough. BUT I do believe (again based on nothing but my own thoughts/feelings), that by ditching the name, Axl would have a giant monkey off his back. CD off his back, GnR off his back, free to just enjoy his music without the pressures, comparisons and preconceived conceptions, that comes with GnR now. That I reckon would give him a massive creative sigh of relief and even with his seemingly perfectionist nature, new music would flow out.......and be judged as it is,...not as GNR.

I think critics would give it more time of day, fellow musicians would have more respect for it, and he'd still be able to sell out shows (perhaps not full arenas, but decent clubs) on his name alone (plus some GNR numbers) and build up a mean following again.

Not even necessarily a solo project. A new band. Subtly put out there. Would be fucking awesome.

[Nosaj Thing]

At the end of the day, if he is only going to release one album every 15 years does it really matter what he calls his band?

This.

I think it's pretty obvious that Axl failed with his vision of Gn'R. Whatever, not that I care that much about the name. Guns N' Roses was worth something back in the 90s, in people's current perspective is just another 80s joke of a band.

[Robert G Durant]

Without the name he'd be playing clubs like Slash and Duff. And the video screens and pyro would be long gone.

That name is why he's able to get good band members like Tommy Stinson and Bumblefoot. Without it he'd be playing with the same Sunset Strip washouts that make the rounds through all the surviving 80's rock bands; Tracii Guns, Kerri Kelly, John Corabi (on guitar), Frankie Banali, etc.