Axl and the lack of new material

[Rovim]

22 minutes ago, Sprite said:

Are you speaking in some sort of odd hyperbole? Like "Axl left Guns when he refused to work with X". I don't follow what you mean here. Axl never left Guns N Roses as far as any of us are concerned. 

And Slash did leave GNR in 96? 

People leave bands all the time, but if some members stay, it often does not mean the band is over. Look at AC/DC and Journey for example. Was it Gn'R after Izzy left? Is it really Guns now without Steven? for some it just ain't.

Guns was started by Axl and Izzy. I think Axl can never leave Guns. He will end it before he'd leave. It's his baby.

Btw, I'm really glad Duff and Slash came back. I don't think it's just about the money. I think they love Guns and it means a lot to them. How could it not? it's a huge accomplishment and they all worked very hard to achieve greatness and it's hypocritical to say Guns is not Guns without Slash but yes it is without Izzy. To me it's just less Guns without any of the original members in the band but still kinda Guns! Better than nothing, I'll take it.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Rovim

[Sprite]

46 minutes ago, Rovim said:

People leave bands all the time, but if some members stay, it often does not mean the band is over. Look at AC/DC and Journey for example. Was it Gn'R after Izzy left? Is it really Guns now without Steven? for some it just ain't.

Guns was started by Axl and Izzy. I think Axl can never leave Guns. He will end it before he'd leave. It's his baby.

Btw, I'm really glad Duff and Slash came back. I don't think it's just about the money. I think they love Guns and it means a lot to them. How could it not? it's a huge accomplishment and they all worked very hard to achieve greatness and it's hypocritical to say Guns is not Guns without Slash but yes it is without Izzy. To me it's just less Guns without any of the original members in the band but still kinda Guns! Better than nothing, I'll take it.

I get the feeling that it's not "Guns N' Roses" without Izzy or Steven. AFD is what established them. It's the best selling debut album and one of only about 35 albums to sell 30+ million. Izzy is just a powerhouse of a songwriter. I definitely understand the viewpoint. They could have replaced Adler with Phil Collins and Izzy with Ronnie Wood and it would still have fallen short to so many. I think that original band had a legendary impact that it's hard to see Guns in any other way for a lot of people.

But at the same time, it's almost juvenile in a way to think that this is the only incarnation Guns can exist in. Or that a band must maintain each original member to be "true". That just isn't how life works. People change, things happen. I hate the fact that music is ran like a business, but like it or not, that's how it is. I equate a lot of GNR fans to professional wrestling fans. Image is everything in the wrestling world, and I think people want the same for Guns. Like Hogan was relatable and really brought wrestling to a new level popularity wise, but when he went to the NWO, some fans couldn't take it and didn't like it. "It's not the REAL Hulk Hogan I know".  Sometimes things get shaken up unexpectedly and you've got to roll with the punches. Izzy had his reasons to leave, Steven needed the wakeup call of being fired, or he'd likely be dead today. How long till Axl would have been blamed for that cause he's taken the brunt of everything else?

 We aren't in the band and don't know them, so the reasons for those 2 leaving and everything that goes into that decision is not available to us as fans, so we must speculate. And I think it's less taxing mentally just to stay in a stubborn viewpoint of "No Adler or Izzy, No GNR". 

Let's say April of 90, Adler is fired and the band decides to quit. Is the "Guns N Roses" name selling out stadiums this summer? Is Appetite and Lies alone enough to still make them an extremely relevant name in 2016? I highly doubt it. They essentially become a 1 album wonder. I think you've got to respect the impact the Illusions material had. And those worked more like an Axl/Slash/Duff album than anything else, no disrespect to Izzy because I know he wrote the bones of a lot of the material. 

I also think to say that those 5 are the only "real" version really negates the entire Illusions era, which I think had an equal impact as AFD as a whole. Maybe that's just my interpretation though. We have 3 of the 5 though, and a blend of the newer band that I greatly respect and appreciate. 

[Babooshka]

3 hours ago, Sprite said:

Are you speaking in some sort of odd hyperbole? Like "Axl left Guns when he refused to work with X". I don't follow what you mean here. Axl never left Guns N Roses as far as any of us are concerned. 

And Slash did leave GNR in 96? 

Axl himself said he left the band in the chats, are you and Rovim calling him liar?

And he left the band in 1995.

Slash can not leave a band he isn't in. 

[Sprite]

8 minutes ago, Babooshka said:

Axl himself said he left the band in the chats, are you and Rovim calling him liar?

And he left the band in 1995.

Slash can not leave a band he isn't in. 

HAHA What!?!?

"Leaving the band" implies 1 person leaves, while the band goes on. If Axl "left the band", I assume that means he reached a point where it got too messy and "left it" in the sense of taking a break. He clearly didn't "leave" the band in the manner that Rovim and I are saying Slash did. Have you heard Chinese Democracy? I could have sworn that it as a "Guns N Roses" album with Axl Rose on vocals, post Slash. Was this all a dream I had?? What is real life??

Slash on the other hand quit in 1996, and returned in 2016.

http://www.oocities.org/rattlesnake_suitcase/tg1997.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash_(musician)#1985.E2.80.931996:_First_stint_with_Guns_N.27_Roses

 

Edited May 13, 2016 by Sprite

[Babooshka]

Don't play obtuse. We know that Axl owns the name and can use it for any new projects. 

He left the band.

 

Edited May 13, 2016 by Babooshka

[Sprite]

Just now, Babooshka said:

Don't play obtuse. 

He left the band.

 

Quote of the century.

[Babooshka]

1 minute ago, Sprite said:

Quote of the century.

If you don't like the truth, that isn't my problem.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Babooshka

[©GnrPersia]

Guys be patient, I think this whole new Axl's will drive and motivation is not something enforced solely by his ACDC participation; But it is in fact coincided with ACDC thing. I guess more exciting things are waiting for us GN'R fans with GN'R.

[DieselDaisy]

Axl quit Guns N' Roses in December 1995 and the band consequentially folded. The band thereafter are a different band (from what existed before); they just happen to possess the same name. 

[Rovim]

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Axl quit Guns N' Roses in December 1995 and the band consequentially folded. The band thereafter are a different band (from what existed before); they just happen to possess the same name. 

Axl never left Guns, he just seized more control over it but he always remained the lead singer and frontman of Gn'R. Everyone left except Axl and Dizzy Reed.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Rovim said:

Axl never left Guns, he just seized more control over it but he always remained the lead singer and frontman of Gn'R. Everyone left except Axl and Dizzy Reed.

Not true. He quit the band and the band folded, Axl retaining the name. He had to quit the band if he wanted the name - that was the only way to take control by the terms of the partnership.

[Rovim]

11 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Not true. He quit the band and the band folded, Axl retaining the name. He had to quit the band if he wanted the name - that was the only way to take control by the terms of the partnership.

What? lol. He made them sign over the name so he can control it before they left. Then he legally retained it and his lawyers changed some bullshit but he was still Axl and still in Guns. You are being a little silly here imo.

Gn'R never did shit without Axl, why are you presenting technicalities as being relevant when we know Axl was always a part of the Gn'R family?

Edited May 13, 2016 by Rovim

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Rovim said:

What? lol. He made them sign over the name so he can control it before they left. Then he legally retained it and his lawyers changed some bullshit but he was still Axl and still in Guns. You are being a little silly here imo.

Gn'R never did shit without Axl, why are you presenting technicalities as being relevant when we know Axl was always a part of the Gn'R family.

He needed to quit and fold the band before he acquired the name.

What part of 'left' and 'withdraw' do you not understand? Read,

 

Quote

"I’d left and formed a new partnership, which was only an effort to salvage Guns not steal it."

(Axl, MyGNR, 12/14/08)

Quote

"This will serve as notice [that] effective [...] Decemeber 30th 1995, I will withdraw from the partnership. [...] I intend to use the name 'Guns N' Roses' in connection with a new group which I will form."

(Slash & Duff v. Axl lawsuit document, 2004)

On December 30th W. Axl Rose quit Guns N' Roses and the band consequentially folded. This is absolute fact.

[Rovim]

^^^

Still clinging to technicalities. No singer was ever in Guns other than Axl, not 1 live show, not 1 decision without Axl. Not really. It's the same band like Fleetwood Mac is the same band on paper, and there's original members left.

So like it or not, Gn'R without the other members, while Axl was touring on and off for 16 years now is, in fact, Gn'R, and Axl was always there. Some drama shit went down, but he never really left the band, I can't believe I'm explaining this shit to you.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Rovim

[DieselDaisy]

A big technicality, the difference between Axl not quitting (your erroneous belief) and quitting (historical reality)!!

[Rovim]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

A big technicality, the difference between Axl not quitting (your erroneous belief) and quitting (historical reality)!!

You are totally wrong. I see you didn't address the part in my post about Guns not doing shit without Axl. And they never released an album without him.

But there's an album with the Gn'R name on it, with Axl and Dizzy Reed featured in it long after Slash and the rest left. What in the fuck are you talking about Daisy.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Rovim

[DieselDaisy]

Quote

"I didn't really know what else to do after Axl sent a letter on August 31, 1995, saying that he was leaving the band and taking the name with him under the terms of the new contract. After that we tried to put it back together."

(Slash, Autobiography)

[Rovim]

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

(Slash, Autobiography)

Just Axl being his dramatic self. So he was 5 seconds technically out of the band. I forgot you are incapable of being objective when it comes to if it's Gn'R or not. Don't really care to be honest.

Is it Gn'R now without Izzy? was it after he left? was it Gn'R after Adler was fired? just stop.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Rovim

[DieselDaisy]

So let's summarise this conversation,

We have W. Axl Rose saying he quit Guns N' Roses: ''I'd left...'' (MyGNR, 12/14/08). We have a legal document from Axl saying he is quitting Guns N' Roses: ''I will withdraw from the partnership'' (Slash & Duff v. Axl lawsuit document, 2004). We also have Slash confirming Axl's departure: ''Axl sent a letter on August 31, 1995, saying that he was leaving the band'' (Autobiography). We even know the date of Axl's departure (30th December 1995).

Yet Axl did not quit Guns N' Roses. Why? Rovim says so.

 

[sanity_lost]

5 minutes ago, Rovim said:

Just Axl being his dramatic self. So he was 5 seconds technically out of the band. I forgot you are incapable of being objective when it comes to if it's Gn'R or not. Don't really care to be honest.

Is it Gn'R now without Izzy? was it after he left? was it Gn'R after Adler was fired? just stop.

Err... I am as much of an Axl and nuGuns defender as anyone, but Axl did leave the band. He with drew from legal entity that was Guns n' Roses (and took the name with him as the legal documents said he could). He created a new legal entity using the band name and invited Duff and Slash back into the band. Making it the "same band", but giving him total control if he wanted it. So he left and dissolved Guns n' Roses then reformed it. From my understanding Duff rejoined and Slash sort of possibly joined on some kind of probationary status then said "F this" and left. Then Duff gave up when nothing was happening and he was trying to live his life with a strict structure to keep sober.

So being completely technical and objective Axl did leave the band.

I don't think Axl has ever wanted to go do things on his own. He always has wanted a band around him. He just always wanted to be in ultimate control so no one could force him into doing what he didn't want to do. It seems to me he was getting a bit paranoid toward the end there.

Edited May 13, 2016 by sanity_lost

[wasted]

But that would mean the partnership that Axl, Slash and Duff formed after Izzy and Steven gone wasn't GNR? 

Basically I think Slash and Duff could have stayed. Laying it off on the technicality of who has the name is weak. Seriously they just wasted 23 years on this name bullshit? 

[DieselDaisy]

13 hours ago, wasted said:

But that would mean the partnership that Axl, Slash and Duff formed after Izzy and Steven gone wasn't GNR? 

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

[sanity_lost]

13 hours ago, wasted said:

But that would mean the partnership that Axl, Slash and Duff formed after Izzy and Steven gone wasn't GNR? 

Basically I think Slash and Duff could have stayed. Laying it off on the technicality of who has the name is weak. Seriously they just wasted 23 years on this name bullshit? 

 

My understanding of it is that the partnership of Axl, Slash and Duff was the same legal entity as the partnership of Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy & Steven. Just that they had to redraw up the contracts and papers each time a partner left the partnership.  Voting rights and such had to be readjusted  (and Axl tacking on the acknowledgement that he owned the name and if he was kicked out of GNR or decided to leave he took the name with him). From the legal stand point that GNR was the same legal entity as the one Izzy and Steven were in. From a fan and music stand point everyone has their own happy opinions. 

[Whiskey Rose]

On ‎2016‎-‎05‎-‎13 at 7:11 AM, Malcolm Malcolm said:

The lukewarm reaction to the (pretty rubbish) new single by the Stone Roses should be a warning about how new material should be approached carefully.

I think there is some validity to this..and I wonder if they are somewhat "testing" the audiences reactions to the CD songs..because lets face it, not a lot of people even listened to this album, so to probably a majority of the concert go-ers, it IS new material..and that's why I don't think its a bad thing for them to be playing the same "nostalgia" songs for the next year..alot of us out here had kind of forgotten about GnR throughout the years, and when the reunion or whatever you want to call it was announced, we all revisited AFD and said Holy Shit I forgot how effing good these songs were! And so most people are not sick of these songs, as they haven't been listening to them over the years or via periscope or clips on here over and over..I think also the band needs this time to see how they really click together without any pressure choking them..this is a year of fun for them, to test the waters, make some money, give the fans a chance to relive these songs, and if all signs point in the right direction, THEN maybe some new material. Not right now though; I really think most people going to these summer concerts want to sing along with familiar songs and relish the fact that they get to see one of their favourite bands from their youth again. (in whatever hybrid form it may be).

[DeadSlash]

The guys have hardly been together, and they have kept everything as secretive as possible.  To have anticipated some sort of album announcement by this time would be unrealistic.

Besides, would you want them to record an album right now?  Or after they work together and refresh their chemistry?