BangoSkank Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 Putting this here because it's I'm sure the mods will consider this a reptitive topic. I know it's been discussed ad nauseum whether or not GNR '98-'14 is really GNR and I'm not trying to have that discussion now. But as I listen to the CD leaks, watch Axl now, see how semi-broken he probably is from the whole CD experience, I can't help but wonder if anything would be different if everything post-Slash was just labeled Axl solo. Would we have more music released? Would we have had CD sooner? Would he have had an overall easier time? Would people have been more receptive to the music? I know there are no real answers, but I'm curious if anyone thinks things would be different and, if so, how? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovim Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 (edited) we'll never know, but I speculate that the Gn'R baggage, the responsibility to deliver something on the caliber of what the classic lineup achieved is immense for Axl. I think if he "only" had to deliver a great solo album, the perfectionism and the goals Axl seems to be interested in as a musician might have still made it difficult for him to be prolific. He also gained a lot of power after Gn'R made it so he might have went for the same type of record (intricate with a lot of styles, layers, epic like Queen) and that might have still taken him years to complete and release but maybe not a decade. it also depends if the first solo album he released in this alternate reality would have been a success. I can imagine a scenario where he released 1 album in 1999, toured in support of it and repeated this process every 5 years or so but too many factors to even make an educated guess imo. Edited June 16, 2021 by Rovim 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknroll41 Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 (edited) I think keeping the GnR name actually helped Axl to push for things like the epic buckethead solo on TWAT, among other elements. So maybe keeping the name is indeed what was best for the music. As the post above says tho, we can never know for sure… Edited June 15, 2021 by rocknroll41 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystery Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 (edited) I recall someone in the late 90's actually asked Axl this. Even he was aware enough to know that people wouldn't care as much without the Guns n' Roses name. He was also getting huge advances predicated on a new GnR album. It was still Guns n' Roses to him because he felt like those lineups were still a band and it was a collaborative process. To your point though, I think Axl was/is creative enough to carve a career on his own merits. It's a shame he never went that route. I think the pressure of being the sole leader of Guns N' Roses since 1994 has definitely been a huge burden for him and has probably been the source of a lot of stress and conflict. Edit: I think it was Chris Vrenna. Edited June 15, 2021 by mystery 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sausagebrain Posted June 16, 2021 Share Posted June 16, 2021 (edited) I wonder if the pressure of delivering songs that live up to people's commercial and artistic expectations of Guns N Roses has slowed down Axl's output? Just a thought. Not saying that if he went solo he'd suddenly become super-prolific (it's clear by now that, in that respect, he's no Prince or Billy Corgan). But maybe he'd be less afraid to actually put stuff out there. Edited June 16, 2021 by Sausagebrain Grammar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.