Replacing Axl???

[Estranged Coma]

Basically I'm asking if slash slash went around using the gnr name in 1990 how would that go? VR is a whole different band from the 2000s there success/failure was due to a different time name and circumstances. Would slash get the immense backlash like Axl has got for using the gnr name after slash? We've seen Axl has had a hard time without slash and company, would it be the same if slash duff and izzy owned the name without ax?

[SoulMonster]

Everyone can be replaced, but the outcome is always different then what is was because a replacement is never identical to what is replaced.

If Axl had been replaced in 1990 the following GN'R albums would have been different than what we got in many ways. To me, without the Axl factor, the albums would have been less interesting. His voice and vocal melodies are integral to the GN'R sound, so is also his compositional skills. Without Axl and his willingness to evolve the band and explore new musical territories,I fear GN'R would be a mediocre outdated rock and roll act. It would have been vastly more productive, but I just wouldn't find the music that interesting and entertaining. In addition, Axl brings so much drama and craziness that the entertainment value of following the band is immense. Replace Axl and the result would, to me, be inferior.

Basically I'm asking if slash slash went around using the gnr name in 1990 how would that go? VR is a whole different band from the 2000s there success/failure was due to a different time name and circumstances. Would slash get the immense backlash like Axl has got for using the gnr name after slash? We've seen Axl has had a hard time without slash and company, would it be the same if slash duff and izzy owned the name without ax?

Slash would have kept GN'R in AFD land, and as such he would get a lot less flac from fans who identify GN'R with the sound of AFD. Unfortunately, he, together with the rest of the guys, would never be able to release anything as good as AFD, and without the enigma and drama that comes with Axl, GN'R would become a boring, bland rock and roll band. It wouldn't be as criticised as today's GN'R, though, and be much less polarizing, but it would join the ranks of mediocrity.

[Słash]

Myles Kennedy

[Ragnar]

Myles Kennedy

don`t even mention him again.

[wasted]

Basically I'm asking if slash slash went around using the gnr name in 1990 how would that go? VR is a whole different band from the 2000s there success/failure was due to a different time name and circumstances. Would slash get the immense backlash like Axl has got for using the gnr name after slash? We've seen Axl has had a hard time without slash and company, would it be the same if slash duff and izzy owned the name without ax?

Depends if Axl died or was fired for being a fuck up or was tricked into signing away the name backstage when he was bombed.

I think Niven was trying to get Axl out based on being late, causing drama, taking the band in his direction.

The thing is outside GNR fans everyone hates them or what they think Axl was like.

So maybe they would support an Axl-less GNR. Look at Slashes post Guns career, people like and media supports him. So as frightening as that is it kind of looks like if they could spin it that Axl was untenable then GNR could have like a Motörhead level metal career.

[Free Bird]

Basically I'm asking if slash slash went around using the gnr name in 1990 how would that go? VR is a whole different band from the 2000s there success/failure was due to a different time name and circumstances. Would slash get the immense backlash like Axl has got for using the gnr name after slash? We've seen Axl has had a hard time without slash and company, would it be the same if slash duff and izzy owned the name without ax?

Depends if Axl died or was fired for being a fuck up or was tricked into signing away the name backstage when he was bombed.

I think Niven was trying to get Axl out based on being late, causing drama, taking the band in his direction.

The thing is outside GNR fans everyone hates them or what they think Axl was like.

So maybe they would support an Axl-less GNR. Look at Slashes post Guns career, people like and media supports him. So as frightening as that is it kind of looks like if they could spin it that Axl was untenable then GNR could have like a Motörhead level metal career.

If Slash had tried to do GNR without Axl he had to deal with the same shit as Axl has to deal with now.

It's not just Axl, or just Slash, or just Izzy. It's all of them together.

If Axl started a solo career (which he actually did), but without the GNR name, I think he wouldn't have right away the success he had with NuGuns but he would have way lesser trouble and CD were viewed much lesser critical as it did under the GNR brand

[wasted]

This hasn't been the case with other bands, so it's possible. Especially if Axl was untenable. Just as they continued without Steven and Izzy to a lesser degree. Before UYI maybe you could convince people Axl was just a singer and look we still write great rock n roll songs. It would be a tough sell but they might have had a Motörhead Ramones type career with a few more fatalities.

I doubt Axl solo would get Rock in Rio headline show. I think he would still get blamed for breaking up GNR. So any solo endeavour would be dogged by the same stuff.

I wonder if the label ever suggested Axl go solo. Sometimes I wonder why they gave him so much money. I know Slash was there at the beginning but to keep funding it after Slash left seems a little strange. I guess Axl is holding the fort Slash might come back.

Edited April 3, 2015 by wasted

[DieselDaisy]

But it does work for some bands, replacing the lead singer. It worked for Sabbath with Dio. It worked commercially for Van Halen with Hager. It certainly worked for Purple twice, first with Ian Gillan which produced their greatest era, and secondly with Coverdale/Hughes. I am not saying that it would have worked without Axl, just that there are examples either way, of it succeeding and not succeeding

They did replace Axl. It was called Velvet Revolver.

That's what I was going to say, and revolver had 1 decent album, 1 awful one and they employed a complete ass as a frontman

If we take Illusion as 'one album' and Lies as an EP, that is a good description of Guns N' Roses also haha

History repeated itself!

[wasted]

That's what I was saying it worked with ACDC.

I think before UYI Niven could have replaced Axl and he could painted Axl as power crazy nutter with the help of izzy, Slash and Duff. But they probably didn't want that.

Slash seemed to have told Dougie to let Niven go cause he couldn't get along with Axl.

But if there was support and they went away regrouped and came back with Mike Clink produced album maybe they could have given Love/Hate a run for their money.

If you strip UYI of Axlness you probably end up with Contraband. The singles would be Garden of Eden and Dont Cry would be like Fall to Pieces.

[DieselDaisy]

Yes, DC also who had their biggest hit with Back in Black.

I think a lot would have rested on the first album. A strong mid 1990s album consisting of Beggars and Hangers On, Neither Can I, Tijuana Jail, Cure Me and Kill Me and Believe In Me, would have been an impressive record. Someone like Bach or Chris Robinson singing. They may have continued to be successful.

[wasted]

It's possible but post November Rain and Axl's lyric and vocal input on UYI plus his live performances/riots maybe not. He became a big star. He could have been Bon Scott. He could have been Kurt Cobain.

[Bono]

Axl diehards are funny.

I suppose that without Axl rock music might have not even existed past 1989.

STP had two huge albums in the 90s. But our Weiland with Slash , izzy and Duff and that band would have failed? Lol. Sure.

And the VR example isn't relevant? It's basically the same band from the example. And they were more successful than Axl with the GnR brand backing him.

Some of you people are hilarious.

No dude. It's not hilarious. It's absurd to think GnR at the height of their fame could replace Axl with someone else. It would never have worked. It didn't work for Motley Crue and they were pretty huge in 1989. They actually got a good singer and put out a pretty solid album to follow up Dr. Feelgood but it failed. Fans rejected it. Are you actually trying to say GnR with Scott Weiland in 1993 would've been accepted? The thought of GnR without Slash makes people cringe what do you think they'd say if Axl wasn't there, replaced with a lesser talented singer? The VR example is NOT relevant because it was 10 years after the fact, not named Guns N Roses and considered a comeback. It wasn't GnR carrying on without arguably one of the greatest frontmen and rock vocalists of all time. Interchanging Axl for Scott would NEVER have worked back in the day and had VR been called GnR in 2004 people would've said fuck off. I'm not even an Axl diehard. Just being real. You don't replace Axl Rose and have it work just like you could never replace Bono, Jager, Freddie, Plant etc etc. It worked for AC/DC but that was a fluke lightning in a bottle type thing.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Bono

[DieselDaisy]

It's possible but post November Rain and Axl's lyric and vocal input on UYI plus his live performances/riots maybe not. He became a big star. He could have been Bon Scott. He could have been Kurt Cobain.

And Ozzy Osbourne, Ian Gillan and DLR were not 'big stars'?

[Bono]

Everyone can be replaced, but the outcome is always different then what is was because a replacement is never identical to what is replaced.

If Axl had been replaced in 1990 the following GN'R albums would have been different than what we got in many ways. To me, without the Axl factor, the albums would have been less interesting. His voice and vocal melodies are integral to the GN'R sound, so is also his compositional skills. Without Axl and his willingness to evolve the band and explore new musical territories,I fear GN'R would be a mediocre outdated rock and roll act. It would have been vastly more productive, but I just wouldn't find the music that interesting and entertaining. In addition, Axl brings so much drama and craziness that the entertainment value of following the band is immense. Replace Axl and the result would, to me, be inferior.

Basically I'm asking if slash slash went around using the gnr name in 1990 how would that go? VR is a whole different band from the 2000s there success/failure was due to a different time name and circumstances. Would slash get the immense backlash like Axl has got for using the gnr name after slash? We've seen Axl has had a hard time without slash and company, would it be the same if slash duff and izzy owned the name without ax?

Slash would have kept GN'R in AFD land, and as such he would get a lot less flac from fans who identify GN'R with the sound of AFD. Unfortunately, he, together with the rest of the guys, would never be able to release anything as good as AFD, and without the enigma and drama that comes with Axl, GN'R would become a boring, bland rock and roll band. It wouldn't be as criticised as today's GN'R, though, and be much less polarizing, but it would join the ranks of mediocrity.

GnR never released anything as good as AFD with Axl either.

[DieselDaisy]

None of them topped Appetite. Not with Illusion. Not with their solo projects. Not Axl with CD. None.

[Tom2112]

The voice of band is the hardest thing to replace. If Al jumped ship in 1990, he would have sank the UYI albums and GnR would gave faded pretty quick, because there is no other singer to replace him. As shown recently, his range is huge - most of the hard rock guys from the late 80s early 90s had good one or the other (high or mid range voices).

People liked his look and his outlaw personality, women especially. Bottom line - there really is no GnR without Axl. I don't think Axl is GnR but, when it comes to only keeping one member of Guns and having it still sound like Guns there's no other options. My obvious preference is to have Slash, Duff and Izzy too because of the fluidity / feel they played with but we all know that's not happening.

Journey, Van Hagar (Halen), AC/DC - the three best examples of replacing a singer and being wildly successful.

[DieselDaisy]

But wouldn't you have said the same thing about Bon, Ozzy or Roth in the late 1970s: ''there is no AC/DC without Bon Scot''. ''There is no Van Halen without DLR'' etc. Yet after these singers departed/were sacked, all three bands went onto commercial and musical triumphs - sometimes even eclipsing the work under their former singer!

I am not saying replacing Axl would have worked. I tend to think otherwise actually. But there are enough examples of it working to not completely dismiss the idea out of hand.

[magisme]

It would have been successful, but it probably would have sucked.

[fred_carston]

Just a random thought. Say Axl quit and pulled an izzy in say 1990. Afew years after appetite while they were huge. Do you think there is anyone on this planet that they (izzy duff slash insert drummer) could have realistically replaced Axl with and continued on with gnr at tht time? Or would that have been impossible after Appetite?

Why couldn't the band have survived with another singer? They were extremely popular at the time.

Plugging in Andrew Wood (before he died in 90), Mike Patton, Scott Weiland, Sebastian Bach or even a Lane Staley would have been choices that could have been hugely successful.

yeah Layne Staley would have made a good choice, wtf a junkie recluse with limbs falling off, i'm suprised he lived as long as he did

[Ragnar]

Scott Weiland who was a complete nobody in 90 would have been a great choice as Axl`s replacement

[SoulMonster]

Everyone can be replaced, but the outcome is always different then what is was because a replacement is never identical to what is replaced.

If Axl had been replaced in 1990 the following GN'R albums would have been different than what we got in many ways. To me, without the Axl factor, the albums would have been less interesting. His voice and vocal melodies are integral to the GN'R sound, so is also his compositional skills. Without Axl and his willingness to evolve the band and explore new musical territories,I fear GN'R would be a mediocre outdated rock and roll act. It would have been vastly more productive, but I just wouldn't find the music that interesting and entertaining. In addition, Axl brings so much drama and craziness that the entertainment value of following the band is immense. Replace Axl and the result would, to me, be inferior.

Basically I'm asking if slash slash went around using the gnr name in 1990 how would that go? VR is a whole different band from the 2000s there success/failure was due to a different time name and circumstances. Would slash get the immense backlash like Axl has got for using the gnr name after slash? We've seen Axl has had a hard time without slash and company, would it be the same if slash duff and izzy owned the name without ax?

Slash would have kept GN'R in AFD land, and as such he would get a lot less flac from fans who identify GN'R with the sound of AFD. Unfortunately, he, together with the rest of the guys, would never be able to release anything as good as AFD, and without the enigma and drama that comes with Axl, GN'R would become a boring, bland rock and roll band. It wouldn't be as criticised as today's GN'R, though, and be much less polarizing, but it would join the ranks of mediocrity.

GnR never released anything as good as AFD with Axl either.

I agree. Still there are nuggets of gold on every record post-AFD, and it's always been interesting, even when the music has been appaling.

[wasted]

It's possible but post November Rain and Axl's lyric and vocal input on UYI plus his live performances/riots maybe not. He became a big star. He could have been Bon Scott. He could have been Kurt Cobain.

And Ozzy Osbourne, Ian Gillan and DLR were not 'big stars'?

I feel like MTV era and videos made Axl hotter than Ozzy or DLR. I didn't even really know who they were. Axl made Jagger look like an old man. Guns sold 100 mil records in 3-5 years?

But I think before UYI there was a window of fail open if things went a certain way. But they wouldn't have been as successful.

The key would be that Axl was fucked up on drugs, literally couldn't do a tour. Or died. Then they could replace him but be like Alice in Chains, not really a huge stadium band that we know. They might have been like The Almighty, god bless them.

[Apollo]

Just a random thought. Say Axl quit and pulled an izzy in say 1990. Afew years after appetite while they were huge. Do you think there is anyone on this planet that they (izzy duff slash insert drummer) could have realistically replaced Axl with and continued on with gnr at tht time? Or would that have been impossible after Appetite?

Why couldn't the band have survived with another singer? They were extremely popular at the time.

Plugging in Andrew Wood (before he died in 90), Mike Patton, Scott Weiland, Sebastian Bach or even a Lane Staley would have been choices that could have been hugely successful.

yeah Layne Staley would have made a good choice, wtf a junkie recluse with limbs falling off, i'm suprised he lived as long as he did

Wow, you don't say. Rock stars being junkies? Amazing Slash and Izzy have lived as long as they have. Same with Ozzy and about 80% of all legendary rock stars.

[Apollo]

Scott Weiland who was a complete nobody in 90 would have been a great choice as Axl`s replacement

Sigh. Your lack of music knowledge actually, at times, hurts my feelings. You obviously know how to operate a computer, and you clearly know how the internet works. Yet your lack of musical knowledge is shockingly inept.

Sit down, you might not know this. But in 1986, Axl Rose was a complete nobody. Every famous musician was - at one time - a complete nobody. But their talent ends up making them a "somebody."

Nobody touched GnR from 1988-1993. But for the entire decade of the 90s? GnR wasn't even the most successful or popular band for the decade. In fact, by 1992-93 a lot of the rock world was burnt out on the band and Axl's antics. In terms of success for the 90s, Stone Temple Pilots were at GnR's level. Were both bands at the same talent level - hell no. But unfortunately for Axl, his band stopped putting out music. STP put out albums. In the 90s, they won rock Grammys, they had number one albums, they had 16 top ten billboard rock hits in the 90s - more than GnR. From 1994 through 2000, STP was a bigger and more popular and more successful band than GnR.

So to say that Weiland couldn't have replaced Axl because he was a nobody......just shows your ignorance of rock music and the 90s decade. I'm willing to give you a break though, maybe you are one of our younger posters and you weren't alive back then.

[wasted]

Chad Kroger replaces Axl and it's a wrap people. We have the dream band.