Would it benefit Axl to drop the GnR name?

[username]

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.

Think about what you're saying here though. You're essentially saying that Tommy and Ron have zero commitment to this band other than gaining exposure for themselves. Now, I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, why would you even WANT a band like that?

[Lies They Tell]

No, it would certainly not be a good business move. The harm to his reputation has already been done. If he dropped the name people would only be saying that "he finally admits that he's not GNR," then people would just continue bithching that he still sucks and should make a reunion. The negativity would not stop. Nothing good would come out of it.

Some people would probably respect him more if he dropped the name, but the negative consequences would outnumber the positive consequences by far.

One of the biggest reasons why I believe that Chinese Democracy will be much more appreciated in the future than now is because it's still a GNR album. Guns N' Roses will go down in history as one of the biggest rock bands of all times and future generations won't give a crap about who played on what album. People will just listen to the songs and like what they like.

If Chinese Democracy would have been released as a Axl Rose solo album, the future generations might never even listen to it. But the fact that it's a GNR album guarantees that the album will never be forgotten.

[wasted]

No because then theres no reason to not release records or do what everyone wants.

[classicrawker]

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.

Think about what you're saying here though. You're essentially saying that Tommy and Ron have zero commitment to this band other than gaining exposure for themselves. Now, I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, why would you even WANT a band like that?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[BangoSkank]

Ehhh, I buy that he wants to move the band forward and views the other guys as "having left it" as opposed to them all breaking up.

[paranoyd androyd]

• i sure wish he would drop the name, but it wouldn't monetarily benefit Axl and his long list of hired hands if he did, so therefore he won't. the name is the only thing left that has any value.

[Mr. Dude]

I think it would benefit him critically. I think critics and fans would/could judge the material and performances more objectively if he went solo. Personally I've never had a problem with him continuing with the name. He never gave up or quit on Guns and just because others did I don't feel like he should be obliged to as well. He named, founded, and was always the band's creative catalyst. I'm glad he's kept it alive. I would love to hear a solo record though- whether it be piano based songs or more industrial, but it seems he's past his industrial phase at this point.

[Rustycage]

The criticism would die down.

Plus, people wouldn't consider him a joke for setting himself up in the contract to where he could quit and take full ownership of the name. The motive in that by itself is enough to say, "fuck the GNR solo project."

[rockerman]

I was for it from word go..put GNR on ICE...let the moment chill and get some shit ironed out in real life. Instead of having to climb into bed and live up to contracts and industry pressures not to mention that CD was going to take a hell of a long time to figure out how to do it to his standards , expectations and visions ....knowing that there were still rabid fans out there waiting and waiting for something as good as or better than their beloved cast of characters had previously done. Explore retool dig in and experiment without having to be "GNR" Leave the name open for cooler heads to prevail.

When the new lineup reemerged and immediately you didnt see the surge for GNR...when years and years became decades plus...when CD was launched and the scene wasnt embracing it as the biggest baddest thing GNR had done ....there was the cue to either step it up or set it down. 10 plus years of touring the same songs- first with that goofy looking bunch of players that FIZZLED and DIED a humiliating death...then with a couple of new guitarists who...well...interesting that we will never know them and percieve them as being anything more or less than Axls pool boys. Add that they have yet to release anything ANYTHING as a current group... and the joke gets all the more clever...

If Robert Plant put together 4 other guys and called it Led Zeppelin ...i would call it fraud. Why? because that was a unique combination of individuals that made that band....i dont see why it should have been any different with GNR. HAd Axl come out aggressively and profoundly with this massive overwhelming album, introduced the world to his new friends , Had he acted like he as a person was still INTO GNR and that it hadnt become his hobby -then those of us that hear the name GNR dont kind of get this disappointed " what could have been feeling " as is often the case for those of us that were there at the heighths of their world wide conquests. GNR was my generations Queen, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppling Iconic band....and had the promise of commanding the respect and audience due...that now for all things considered...is percieved as being not that big of a deal.

But from the $$$ aspect... GNR was an investment..it had contracts and personell and record connections..its popularity...its song catalogue and the name alone commands more $ based on its recording and touring history. Axl or what ever forces that be... waited to long....to push GNR back into massive popular.. and CD simply didnt really help the cause...if anything it made too many people draw the line between fake and authentic GNR.

[NachoLZ]

if since 1999 everything would have been done ok, no cancelled shows in 2002, better 2001 rir voice, awesome 2002 vma show, cd release in 2004 max, Axl would have been as successful or even more than the 90s

[liers]

At this point, no. He's worked through so much to keep the name, to rebuild the band, it would look like all that was a waste. At this point he needs to continue under the GnR name. He's made such a spectacle over himself too the last 11 years, GnR is the only thing he really has.

If you asked this in the late 90s or even up to 2001, then I would say yes. He had a good lineup in 2002. He hadn't toured in years. He could've started out fresh with a new band. Bring over Dizzy, add in the new guys, play some old songs and probably release the new stuff faster. Axl was the main reason rio was so big.... Noone came to see Dizzy or to just hear the name. He could've toured as Mickey Mouse starring Axl Rose and sold out shows.... People wanted to see him, see what he could do.

That said, I'm not saying he SHOULD'VE, I think he had the right to keep it. But, had he surrendered the name and went under a different one, he would've avoided 80% of the criticism he got.

Edited December 13, 2013 by liers

[username]

A lot of people seem to say "at this point, no", but to me it seems like at this point more than ever.

Rebuilding GnR turned into a revolving door band that can't release anything and is covered in drama. Why not drop all that and start over?

Edited December 13, 2013 by username

[D-GenerationX]

I've spent years, and that's YEARS, people, saying that Slash an Duff were fools to sign away their claim to such a lucrative operation.

So I therefore cannot sit here and say Axl should drop it. The name is everything. "The Axl Rose Band" does not headline festivals.

[TeeJay410]

There is very little reason for him to drop the name. Arenas will book a band called guns n roses, but not necessarily the same band called "the Axl rose experience." It'll get him tours to make money, whenever he feels like putting out a song he will have no problem getting distribution or media attention. Axl's artistic integrity or dignity isn't compromised by it being called GNR, because in his mind he is guns n roses. Any idea he has or song he records is guns n roses.

[classicguns4life]

Yes he should, although to be completely fair it doesn't even matter anymore. Axl is almost done as a musician, so him dropping the name now won't get anyone to care about him more than they already do. It'd be jokes galore. It would have benefitted him from 2007 or earlier.

[One.In.A.Million]

Of course it wouldn't benefit Axl if he dropped the GN'R name, especially at this point. The name allows Axl to play festivals and big arenas, which is all due to the GN'R's legacy and history, like it or not.

[TeeJay410]

If Axl dropped it in 1996 and put out an album as The Axl Rose Experience in '99, then sure it would have been fine. However now it makes much more financial sense to keep the name.

The emotion level or respect behind it is irrelevant. If he suddenly dropped the name people may respect him more for it, but it won't necessarily sell more records or book as big of tours. You also have to take into consideration that maybe Axl doesn't give a shit about putting out music anymore, and maybe hasn't given a shit for year. Chinese Democracy was something he just had to finish. Surely he writes music and enjoys playing but the possibility that all the band is at this point is his job has to be acknowledged. Axl is the CEO of Guns N' Roses. It wouldn't make much sense to just drop the brand of Guns N' Roses and go solo after all the advantages it gives you.

Maybe he's not in it for the fans anymore, outside of giving them a good show. Maybe he's not in it for respect and adulation. Maybe touring as GNR is his 9-5, allowing him to see the world and do what he enjoys while supporting his standard of living. I guess my deal is we say if this or that will "benefit" Axl, as if we know what Axl wants. Maybe he would gain more respect and credibility releasing solo music, but does that even matter to Axl at this point?

Edited December 13, 2013 by TeeJay410

[Roush]

A lot of people seem to say "at this point, no", but to me it seems like at this point more than ever.

Rebuilding GnR turned into a revolving door band that can't release anything and is covered in drama. Why not drop all that and start over?

From what we've seen, there's no more fire in Axl's belly. When he was younger, and angrier up until about 2006 even -- I would've said sure. But now that he's 50, and seems content playing Jukebox Tours, and Vegas Residencies, does anyone think the dude is still ambitious?

[Naupis]

A lot of people seem to say "at this point, no", but to me it seems like at this point more than ever.

Rebuilding GnR turned into a revolving door band that can't release anything and is covered in drama. Why not drop all that and start over?

From what we've seen, there's no more fire in Axl's belly. When he was younger, and angrier up until about 2006 even -- I would've said sure. But now that he's 50, and seems content playing Jukebox Tours, and Vegas Residencies, does anyone think the dude is still ambitious?

He's not ambitious at all.

The amazing thing about the entire experience with him is I thought he would be the last one of the group to be content to be playing an Appetite tribute every night instead of pushing the envelope and creating new music.

Instead he has been the laziest one of all of them and is just fine operating as a defacto tribute band by just playing the hits every night.

I thought he was better than that, but clearly he isn't.

[Randy Jesus]

Edited December 14, 2013 by Randy Jesus

[Birk]

only in the US, there are still people in other countries that dont even know Slash isnt in the band anymore.

People in the US in my opinion are coming to see axl and obviously hear old gnr songs, so as long as he played old gnr songs

[Roush]

A lot of people seem to say "at this point, no", but to me it seems like at this point more than ever.

Rebuilding GnR turned into a revolving door band that can't release anything and is covered in drama. Why not drop all that and start over?

From what we've seen, there's no more fire in Axl's belly. When he was younger, and angrier up until about 2006 even -- I would've said sure. But now that he's 50, and seems content playing Jukebox Tours, and Vegas Residencies, does anyone think the dude is still ambitious?

He's not ambitious at all.

The amazing thing about the entire experience with him is I thought he would be the last one of the group to be content to be playing an Appetite tribute every night instead of pushing the envelope and creating new music.

He was.

While the others were doing rehashes of punk, blues, and hard rock -- Axl was out trying to reinvent his style. It cannot be comfortable to go from a pop rock schtick, to working with producers like Moby, and Sean Beavan. That Axl who wanted to try new things, and push new boundaries, though -- is gone. Not everybody can be David Bowie.

[GivenToFly]

A lot of people seem to say "at this point, no", but to me it seems like at this point more than ever.

Rebuilding GnR turned into a revolving door band that can't release anything and is covered in drama. Why not drop all that and start over?

From what we've seen, there's no more fire in Axl's belly. When he was younger, and angrier up until about 2006 even -- I would've said sure. But now that he's 50, and seems content playing Jukebox Tours, and Vegas Residencies, does anyone think the dude is still ambitious?

I think he is disillusioned more than anything. He tried to do something interesting and for whatever reasons failed. With some success he could get his groove back.

[username]

A lot of people seem to say "at this point, no", but to me it seems like at this point more than ever.

Rebuilding GnR turned into a revolving door band that can't release anything and is covered in drama. Why not drop all that and start over?

From what we've seen, there's no more fire in Axl's belly. When he was younger, and angrier up until about 2006 even -- I would've said sure. But now that he's 50, and seems content playing Jukebox Tours, and Vegas Residencies, does anyone think the dude is still ambitious?

He's not ambitious at all.

The amazing thing about the entire experience with him is I thought he would be the last one of the group to be content to be playing an Appetite tribute every night instead of pushing the envelope and creating new music.

He was.

While the others were doing rehashes of punk, blues, and hard rock -- Axl was out trying to reinvent his style. It cannot be comfortable to go from a pop rock schtick, to working with producers like Moby, and Sean Beavan. That Axl who wanted to try new things, and push new boundaries, though -- is gone. Not everybody can be David Bowie.

A lot of people seem to say "at this point, no", but to me it seems like at this point more than ever.

Rebuilding GnR turned into a revolving door band that can't release anything and is covered in drama. Why not drop all that and start over?

From what we've seen, there's no more fire in Axl's belly. When he was younger, and angrier up until about 2006 even -- I would've said sure. But now that he's 50, and seems content playing Jukebox Tours, and Vegas Residencies, does anyone think the dude is still ambitious?

I think he is disillusioned more than anything. He tried to do something interesting and for whatever reasons failed. With some success he could get his groove back.

This and maybe this.

I think his ambition was on it's top between 1997 and 2002. A lot of it was still there in 2006 I think, but already on the decline over record companies, problems with the release and Bucket leaving. Then came the letdown of CD. And ever since it's been at a steady decline, with now being the all-time low.

It's one of the main reasons I'd want Axl (NOT Team Complaints) to start his own record company and release things on that. Or independently. Just to be free of the hassle of things being turned down and criticized. It'd allow him much more artistic freedom.

But it seems too little too late I'm afraid. I'm not sure a bit of success could fix that. And even then, success requires action. Making an announcement that you might play up to 3 new songs (one of which is probably Going own) on your 87th leg of the Chinese Democracy tour doesn't count. It won't bring you that success. Not enough I'd think to ignite a fire like that again.

[DR DOOM]

I sort of compare it to Black Sabbath in the mid to late 80's when it was just Tony Iommi from the original lineup, and a bunch of "no names"

All the mags used to opine that Tony should have laid the name to rest etc-I remember a friend in high school got into Sabbath and bought the Cross Purposes album thinking it was an Ozzy one...she was literally like WTF is this shit?!?

She was fucking disgusted, and while I liked that album back then it took me years to really give some of the other "no name" albums a fair go (like Headless Cross, TYR yadadada)- and lo and behold they have some pretty damn good stuff on them.

But Tony Martin sure as fuck aint Ozzy or Dio or Ian Gillan, and I would wager at least 95% of casual fans would be like "this isn't Black Sabbath" if they got sprung with Iommi, Tony Martin, Dave Spitz, Nichols and Cozy Powell (may he RIP)

Axl calling it GNR doesn't really bother me too much, it's his band to run into the ground as he sees fit..but having DJ Ashba in the band is taking it a bit too far for my liking.

edit: yes artistically, no financially. I understand why he doesn't drop the name.

Edited December 14, 2013 by DR DOOM