Jump to content

What would have happened if Axl ever left Guns N'Roses? 🤔


Recommended Posts

So, in 1988, Axl says something like,"If certain people don't stop dancing with Mr. Brownstone, this will be the last Guns N'Roses Show ever." Axl was fed up with his Bandmates using Heroin and was seriously thinking of leaving Guns N'Roses if they didn't stop doing Heroin. Slash, Duff, Izzy stopped but Steven was far too addicted to stop and was fired. I wonder what would have happened if Axl did leave Guns N'Roses and the Band became just Guns and the Lead Singers became Izzy and Duff. 🤔

Edited by Karice
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Axl left Guns N' Roses in 1988, there is a small chance that he would have become bigger than the band because he had November Rain in his back pocket. If he got Don't Cry from Izzy, that seals the deal. If Axl releases November Rain and Don't Cry as a solo act, then the "Axl Rose" brand becomes bigger than the GNR brand, and he gets the label support going forward to do the CD sessions and so on.

Had he left the band after UYI, he would have failed because the general public does not care about solo acts until they have a legitimate hit, and the labels don't give solo acts the same level of support that they give to the name brand bands that they come from. If GNR burned all his good material, he clearly wasn't going to write or record anything else. 

If you look at CD, he was afforded a budget and time frame that allowed him to hire a bunch of strong studio musicians like Freese, Stinson, and Finck. The way the core of the songs which were done in 1999 were created would not have been possible as a solo artist. He would not have received the budget or patience from the label. Which means he would be stuck either recruiting a band and recording more organically, or he would spin his wheels until the cash ran out and a reunion seemed like a good idea.

I am not saying that the CD sessions didn't produce anything good. Only that if it took that much label support, and how much jamming and instrumentals were required to create even the dozen or so songs that were pegged for the 1999 album, Axl was unlikely to produce anything at all organically on his own with Paul Tobias and whoever else wanted to take a chance to be in Axl's new band without a major salary provided by the label.

If Slash and co. had the name and Axl was out, Axl is never getting back into the band unless whatever new frontman they recruit fails commercially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, jacdaniel said:

They wouldn’t have been successful without Axl, just as they weren’t without Slash. 

 

I don't know how you can say this given how successful Contraband was. 

It comes down to who they choose for a frontman and Slash's willingness to do ballads or softer songs. The songs for the chicks were always their biggest songs, even Fall To Pieces somewhat fits that mould. If they found an Axl or Weilland tier frontman, they would have been successful.

They may have had a lull in the mid or late 90s because they were completely out-of-fashion, which only seemed to be understood by Axl who seemed to want evolve the direction of the band to something that would have been more contemporary at the time. Everything is cyclical, and by the 2000s people were fine with "classic rock" again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Velvet Revolver profited off the success of GnR for the first album, failed to create an organic fanbase of loyal fans, and then their second album bombed so hard they got dropped from their record label and the band broke up. If people are using that as a mold for how GnR would have done without Axl, that's not much of a compliment. 

It was an absolutely stupid idea to fire their frontman from the album that was just starting to blow up. If they had done that, they would have failed and deserved every bit of that failure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, meadsoap said:

Velvet Revolver profited off the success of GnR for the first album, failed to create an organic fanbase of loyal fans, and then their second album bombed so hard they got dropped from their record label and the band broke up. If people are using that as a mold for how GnR would have done without Axl, that's not much of a compliment. 

It was an absolutely stupid idea to fire their frontman from the album that was just starting to blow up. If they had done that, they would have failed and deserved every bit of that failure.

Speaking of a band firing their Front man, Kajagoogoo fired their Front man and quickly crashed and burned after having only one major hit when he was still the Front man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Karice said:

Speaking of a band firing their Front man, Kajagoogoo fired their Front man and quickly crashed and burned after having only one major hit when he was still the Front man. 

I know they are like an 80's joke of a pop band but I swear to god there bass player is actually amazing..

But to address the first question, i think if axl left at that point then they carry on doing heroin and get an average singer, and make average music and either split up or die.

Edited by Rindmelon
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, meadsoap said:

Velvet Revolver profited off the success of GnR for the first album, failed to create an organic fanbase of loyal fans, and then their second album bombed so hard they got dropped from their record label and the band broke up. If people are using that as a mold for how GnR would have done without Axl, that's not much of a compliment. 

It was an absolutely stupid idea to fire their frontman from the album that was just starting to blow up. If they had done that, they would have failed and deserved every bit of that failure.

Wasn't Axl actually fired for like three days back in 88 or 89? I'm probably getting my dates mixed up, but it was after a no show of his. I think to come back he had to agree to a clinic or something, but it was shocking to me they thought they could get rid of their frontman at the time. Even if it was less than a week, what were they thinking? There's no way they would have been as successful without him imo 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BluegrassBlues said:

Wasn't Axl actually fired for like three days back in 88 or 89? I'm probably getting my dates mixed up, but it was after a no show of his. I think to come back he had to agree to a clinic or something, but it was shocking to me they thought they could get rid of their frontman at the time. Even if it was less than a week, what were they thinking? There's no way they would have been as successful without him imo 

Yes, it was in early 1988:

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, meadsoap said:

Velvet Revolver profited off the success of GnR for the first album, failed to create an organic fanbase of loyal fans, and then their second album bombed so hard they got dropped from their record label and the band broke up. If people are using that as a mold for how GnR would have done without Axl, that's not much of a compliment. 

It was an absolutely stupid idea to fire their frontman from the album that was just starting to blow up. If they had done that, they would have failed and deserved every bit of that failure.

VR were dropped from the label after they fired Scott Weiland.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Gunner Gilby said:

Well Axl owns the name and is the only original member who's been there the whole time. So when he's had enough that's it.

I wonder if Axl bought the Guns N'Roses name so that the Guns could NEVER fire him again, implying something like,"Ha ha you, Bitches, you can NEVER fire me again, because I own the name!" 😏😜

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Karice said:

I wonder if Axl bought the Guns N'Roses name so that the Guns could NEVER fire him again, implying something like,"Ha ha you, Bitches, you can NEVER fire me again, because I own the name!" 😏😜

Duh, obviously it was a power move for total control.

Edited by PatrickS77
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...