Jump to content

Back to the Future 4?


Montrealer

Recommended Posts

By my count Axl bands (Hollywood Rose and Guns N' Roses) have had at least 22 -that's twenty two!- different members since Axl and Izzy first started making music together. I love Slash and Duff, but Velvet Revolver isn't that great, and its because of Scott (that's just my personal opinion, I don't hate Scott, I just don't think he's a very compelling singer). The singer is the most important member of any band.

Everyone who bitches about Axl still performing and using the name Guns N' Roses, there's nothing any of us can do. Would changing the name of the band to AXL be enough to allow you to actually listen to the musicianship and acknowledge the current members? Or will you forever live in the past? Maybe I'll jump on your bandwagon, break out my VR Contraband CD and complain that Matt Sorum isn't as good as Steven Adler and that Dave Kushner isn't as good as Gilby Clarke who in turn isn't as good as Izzy Stradlin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Do you know what has never happened? A professional group picture of the entire new Guns N' Roses.

weird...my and a friend actually talked about that earlier today..

And I think it's one of the reasons I can't see them as a band.. The new guys sort of have a "hired-musician" feeling over them..

I think they should have a photosession or something..it would make tham more belivable as a band..

:lol: They are hired musicians. It's not a band, it's the Axl Rose Show. If Axl weren't in GN'R right now it wouldn't exist, period. It has become almost synonymous with Axl. It's not a band as much as a one-man army at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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