Reverse Scenario

[Turn_It_Up]

Let me start by saying Axl is far and away my favorite frontman and there could be no true GNR without him(just like I feel about Slash). Axl's image, vocals and lyrics are rightfully imprinted in GNR fans' hearts and minds...and his contributions were unquestionably enormous.

BUT, I maintain that if Axl had walked away in the 90's and "GNR" was making its heralded return with Slash, Izzy, Duff and Matt or Steven with a new frontman such as Cornell or Weiland, the buzz right now would be even MUCH larger. Hell, say Izzy doesn't come back and you had the VR lineup(with SW or Cornell), I think the interest in the general public, outside GNR fan forums, would indeed be considerably bigger and broader.

Look at how much buzz VR got just throwing the band together in a few months, and then consider a slow build up like now with the powerful GNR brand name behind it. Would've been HUGE, IMO, and even more so with Izzy. I think the album would sell more, the shows would get even larger attendance, and overall they'd be commercially stronger. The vast majority of us diehards are going to buy the GNR album whether it's Axl and his new lineup or the other band I mentioned--but again, I think a pure Axl audience is more limited.

Of course, it's not entirely fair to compare the 2 since Axl's new band is only 1/5th original GNR, but it does make the point that the other originals and even Matt also represent GNR to a hell of a lot of people and were not the trivial sidekicks often painted here.

I think the album, shows and band overall would sell best in the following order:

1)Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy/Gilby, Steven/Matt--no contest, this would walk away with top honors

2)Lineup of Cornell/Weiland, Slash, Duff, Izzy/Gilby/Dave and Matt/Steven

3)Axl and his new lineup

I support Axl and can't wait for CD, but I believe the above to be true IMHO...

Edited March 5, 2006 by Turn_It_Up

[TheWildheart]

Hmm...

I don't think so man. VERY few bands can get away with replacing their lead singer. AC/DC did it. Van Halen did it ONCE (Don't get me started on the Gary Cherone experiment), and that's really it man. Skynyrd did it, but that's only because they were a special circumstance, and at least they replaced the dude with his brother.

If GN'R came back without Axl, it'd be bullshit, and no-one would buy into it.

[Turn_It_Up]

As said, I agree it wouldn't be true GNR without Axl, but look at the success of AS which is just RATM with Cornell. Very similar. And as you mentioned, VH, AC/DC and others have successfully replaced beloved frontmen though most of their old fans still prefer the original...

Edited March 5, 2006 by Turn_It_Up

[TheWildheart]

ALOT of people still think Hagar ruined Van Halen though too, even though they were wildly successful. One of my friends is a HUGE Hagar/Van Halen fan, but even he can't stand "Van Hagar" all the time.

Audioslave just sucks, so they don't count!

[Turn_It_Up]

SUBS, I do think almost any "Return Of" GNR album is going to sell well given the rabid fanbase and brand name. But assuming you had a quality frontman like Cornell or SW, I think it would bring an expanded audience(I don't think just any frontman could keep the group thriving commercially beyond the first album).

I'll always be a huge Axl fan, but to the general public he's always been a polarizing figure as you know and 10+ years later like this I do think my guess(that's all it is) about the order in which they'd receive commercial success in 2006 is correct.

As you say, we'll never know and at this point I'd prefer to get Axl's album and VR's album(and AS' new album) this year as we need all the good rock we can get.

Edited March 5, 2006 by Turn_It_Up

[SylvesterStallone]

Interesting scenario. I think the problem with GnR as of now is that Axl is extremely polarizing with the media. He's always been controversial and a lot of the negativity surrounding Guns would be gone if Axl was not in the band anymore. He's kind of a love/hate type of person and its hard to not notice the detractors of gnr almost always focus their criticism more on Axl and his "eccentricities" rather than the music. Similar to Michael Jackson where the persona distracts from the music. However, without Axl the band would be lacking the explosive edgy element. Guns N Roses gives off a rebellious and dangerous aura mostly due in part to Axl's unpredictability. Some of that was also due to Slash, he was a cool and mysterious looking guitarist, a great image.

An Axl-less gnr would lose a lot of the negativity that follows guns, but it would also lose the edge imho. Cornell and Weiland don't bring that to the table, they seem rather boring in comparison to Axl.

[eschman]

As said, I agree it wouldn't be true GNR without Axl, but look at the success of AS which is just RATM with Cornell. Very similar. And as you mentioned, VH, AC/DC and others have successfully replaced beloved frontmen though most of their old fans still prefer the original...

Rage and Audioslave appeal to very different audiences. Rage was OK, but a new singer (and arguably the best rock singer around) added to replace a rapper is going to have a profound efect among rock circles.

Audioslave changed their name.

Neither Rage nor Audioslave's "name brand" approach approaching the hugeness that was GnR by the early 90s.

You assume that there will be no huge success for GnR.

This is a very strange thread.

You're using an example to compare apples and oranges. They don't compare.

[The Sandman]

You don't understand, Axl is GN'R.

[Turn_It_Up]

As said, I agree it wouldn't be true GNR without Axl, but look at the success of AS which is just RATM with Cornell. Very similar. And as you mentioned, VH, AC/DC and others have successfully replaced beloved frontmen though most of their old fans still prefer the original...

Rage and Audioslave appeal to very different audiences. Rage was OK, but a new singer (and arguably the best rock singer around) added to replace a rapper is going to have a profound efect among rock circles.

Audioslave changed their name.

Neither Rage nor Audioslave's "name brand" approach approaching the hugeness that was GnR by the early 90s.

You assume that there will be no huge success for GnR.

This is a very strange thread.

You're using an example to compare apples and oranges. They don't compare.

AS was just one example. Bring Cornell into GNR like mentioned throughout my thread(one rock vocalist replacing another) and I do think it sells big in this instance. And I said Axl's GNR is going to sell well for this first 'return of' album, that's almost a guarantee. My point was that I think the alternative would've probably sold even bigger given a similar build up...

[Guest Matt13]

Let me start by saying Axl is far and away my favorite frontman and there could be no true GNR without him(just like I feel about Slash). Axl's image, vocals and lyrics are rightfully imprinted in GNR fans' hearts and minds...and his contributions were unquestionably enormous.

BUT, I maintain that if Axl had walked away in the 90's and "GNR" was making its heralded return with Slash, Izzy, Duff and Matt or Steven with a new frontman such as Cornell or Weiland, the buzz right now would be even MUCH larger. Hell, say Izzy doesn't come back and you had the VR lineup(with SW or Cornell), I think the interest in the general public, outside GNR fan forums, would indeed be considerably bigger and broader.

Look at how much buzz VR got just throwing the band together in a few months, and then consider a slow build up like now with the powerful GNR brand name behind it. Would've been HUGE, IMO, and even more so with Izzy. I think the album would sell more, the shows would get even larger attendance, and overall they'd be commercially stronger. The vast majority of us diehards are going to buy the GNR album whether it's Axl and his new lineup or the other band I mentioned--but again, I think a pure Axl audience is more limited.

Of course, it's not entirely fair to compare the 2 since Axl's new band is only 1/5th original GNR, but it does make the point that the other originals and even Matt also represent GNR to a hell of a lot of people and were not the trivial sidekicks often painted here.

I think the album, shows and band overall would sell best in the following order:

1)Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy/Gilby, Steven/Matt--no contest, this would walk away with top honors

2)Lineup of Cornell/Weiland, Slash, Duff, Izzy/Gilby/Dave and Matt/Steven

3)Axl and his new lineup

I support Axl and can't wait for CD, but I believe the above to be true IMHO...

Some good thoughts... but I just don't think it would have worked. I didn't read through the thread, so if it's been mentioned, my bad, but a groups image is usually the frontman. Sure, lead guitar guys and VERY rarely a bassist or drummer to serious fans matters too... but to the mainstream fan the frontman is the image of the band.

The only groups that could get away with losing a lead singer and keep the band name are Pink Floyd and the Beatles... as Roger Waters and Dave Gilmoure/ McCartney and Lennon of are equal value when it comes to the lead vocal capacity. Well, Van Halen proved a point too, but if the name of that band was anything but 'Van Halen', it would have forever had the face of David Lee Roth. In fact, to most VH fans, they feel that way anyway.

I mean, look at when Vince Neal left Motley Crue... arguably at a time when 'the Crue' could have kept going strong with stuido work... they brought in some new guy and it flopped, big time. Queen w/o Freddie Mercury? The Doors w/o Jim Morrison?

Imagine U2 without Bono, or Bon Jovi w/o Bon Jovi. Aerosmith w/o Steven Tyler... Zepplin w/o Robert Plant.

The frontman is usually an irreplaceable component of any band. GNR back in the mid-90's was a dying dinosaur... the sound that is. Even with another GNR album with Axl on it (that would have had an Illusions or 5 O' Clock Somewhere sound-- Slash's idea of the next GNR album) in the 90's, it probably would have flopped and sent GNR down the road of obscurity... kind of the place where bands like Poison, Motley Crue and The Scorpions now reside.

At any rate, Axl is the one and only component of GNR that can make it a success no matter who are the backing musicians. That's not being an Axl ass kisser, that's just being pretty much point blank. If CD comes out and does no better than VR, well, I'll be proven wrong and accept that.

I don't think that's going to be the case, however.

EDIT: Given the build up, I still don't think it would work. Axl's voice is so unique. You could trade a Chris Cornell for an Eddie Vedder or a David Lee Roth for Sammy Haggar, simply because their voices compliment the former well. I've never heard of somebody else (popular/celebrity musicisn) that could pull off Axl's rasp and vocal range. I can pull it off pretty good... but even an Axl impersonator wouldn't really work...lol. If the guys from the VR camp think it could, give me a call. Ask Madison for my email... lol.

Edited March 6, 2006 by Matt13

[Axls_Disillusion]

no way. what you are talking about is basically velvet revolver.. and GNR is and will always be a more successful group then that bunch.

[Pain_Train_99]

Whoever has axl sells more copies just because EVERYBODY remembers Axl Rose, not many ppl except the fans remember any names of the ppl in the band besides maybe slash. But ppl who hear "AXl is back" will be more intrigued then if they hear "Matt sorum and duff put on a great show." Axl carries more weight.

[Turn_It_Up]

There's no doubt that Axl and an all-new lineup such as this under the GNR name would outsell any of the other original members by themselves with an all-new lineup under the GNR name. If it has to be this way, it's best with Axl.

But I still think, at least commercially, they'd come in third place in the scenarios I mentioned.

Added: AD, you are missing the comparison. The intrigue and commercial potential of VR is a different thing than if you took that same group, possibly with Izzy, and had them come back with a new vocalist under the all-powerful GNR name. It's a HUGE difference and competitive advantage for any lineup using the GNR brand. You don't think Axl knows this?

Edited March 6, 2006 by Turn_It_Up

[Axls_Disillusion]

There's no doubt that Axl and an all-new lineup such as this under the GNR name would outsell any of the other original members by themselves with an all-new lineup under the GNR name. If it has to be this way, it's best with Axl.

But I still think, at least commercially, they'd come in third place in the scenarios I mentioned.

Added: AD, you are missing the comparison. The intrigue and commercial potential of VR is a different thing than if you took that same group, possibly with Izzy, and had them come back with a new vocalist under the all-powerful GNR name. It's a HUGE difference and competitive advantage for any lineup using the GNR brand. You don't think Axl knows this?

It wouldn't work without Axl. Back in the old days, whenever GNR made the news, it was because of Axl(good or bad). He is the face of GNR. He was the one that was so unpredictable and just draws a fascination the other guys don't. Guns N' Roses. Not Guns N' Stradlins, Guns n' McKagans, and definitely not Guns n' Slashes. It just doesn't work.

[Turn_It_Up]

AD, you could've made those same exact arguments against VH without DLR and AC/DC without Bon.

Yeah, Axl was edgier and more interesting than these other frontmen I'd suggested, I just don't think you're going to get as much positive mileage out of that with the general public given the shifts in musical taste and Axl being in his 40's. I love SW for VR, but for a reformed GNR I think Cornell would be ideal at least musically.

But I'm glad they didn't do this, I wouldn't want a GNR without Axl...

Edited March 6, 2006 by Turn_It_Up