Vincent Vega Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 HeyA lot of people complain that Axl continuing on with the GN'R name was a bad move, and that the GN'R of today isn't really GN'R. Well, a question...If Paul McCartney and George Harrison left the Beatles in 1969, but Lennon and Ringo continued on as the Beatles, and let's say a few years later, released songs which would've been Lennon solo songs such as "Give Peace a Chance" or "Happy Xmas (War is Over)" could it have been legitimized as being the Beatles?I think Axl made the wrong move in delaying the album for so long. If he had released an album in 1997 after Slash left, and some albums after that as well, I think many more people (and the media in general) would recognize it as being GN'R, especially if the albums were good and GN'R toured to support them and the new members gave interviews.Your Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GET OFF AXLS BACK Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 For me Axl is and allways was GnR so i don't mind either way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunzen Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 HeyA lot of people complain that Axl continuing on with the GN'R name was a bad move, and that the GN'R of today isn't really GN'R. Well, a question...If Paul McCartney and George Harrison left the Beatles in 1969, but Lennon and Ringo continued on as the Beatles, and let's say a few years later, released songs which would've been Lennon solo songs such as "Give Peace a Chance" or "Happy Xmas (War is Over)" could it have been legitimized as being the Beatles?I think Axl made the wrong move in delaying the album for so long. If he had released an album in 1997 after Slash left, and some albums after that as well, I think many more people (and the media in general) would recognize it as being GN'R, especially if the albums were good and GN'R toured to support them and the new members gave interviews.Your Thoughts?John Lennon is a dead hypocritte who sat on Merv Griffin spouting "Peace, love and dope" but alienated his own first son because he did not come from his dipshit wife Yoko, Sean got all the cash and look how great he is. John Lennon dies and Oprah took his place as the biggest hypocritte on Earth.Paul is a genius and wrote the majority of the great songs , Hey Jude, Yesterday etc. So lets just take John Lennon out of any conversation, he would be in jail for no child support if he pulled his bullshit today.I dont see too many people complaining about much except lack of variety in set lists actually. Which is actually becoming less of a problem with every show. Dont mean to jump on you dude, but I loathe that freebird lil bitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNRfan001 Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 For me Axl is and allways was GnR so i don't mind either way yeah i dont mind itwithout axl their would be no GNR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunzen Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 For me Axl is and allways was GnR so i don't mind either way yeah i dont mind itwithout axl their would be no GNRThe more I listen to the new music, I am starting to just think I am an Axl Rose fan, not necessarily GNR. Kinda wierd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avg_ Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 HeyA lot of people complain that Axl continuing on with the GN'R name was a bad move, and that the GN'R of today isn't really GN'R. Well, a question...If Paul McCartney and George Harrison left the Beatles in 1969, but Lennon and Ringo continued on as the Beatles, and let's say a few years later, released songs which would've been Lennon solo songs such as "Give Peace a Chance" or "Happy Xmas (War is Over)" could it have been legitimized as being the Beatles?I think Axl made the wrong move in delaying the album for so long. If he had released an album in 1997 after Slash left, and some albums after that as well, I think many more people (and the media in general) would recognize it as being GN'R, especially if the albums were good and GN'R toured to support them and the new members gave interviews.Your Thoughts?it's funny you said that, slash said the exact thing in an interview a few years back, and it's a good point. but this isnt the beatles, its gnr, and they seem to be doing well with a new lineup, somehow i dont think it would have worked for the beatles! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokingarthur Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 HeyA lot of people complain that Axl continuing on with the GN'R name was a bad move, and that the GN'R of today isn't really GN'R. Well, a question...If Paul McCartney and George Harrison left the Beatles in 1969, but Lennon and Ringo continued on as the Beatles, and let's say a few years later, released songs which would've been Lennon solo songs such as "Give Peace a Chance" or "Happy Xmas (War is Over)" could it have been legitimized as being the Beatles?I think Axl made the wrong move in delaying the album for so long. If he had released an album in 1997 after Slash left, and some albums after that as well, I think many more people (and the media in general) would recognize it as being GN'R, especially if the albums were good and GN'R toured to support them and the new members gave interviews.Your Thoughts?John Lennon is a dead hypocritte who sat on Merv Griffin spouting "Peace, love and dope" but alienated his own first son because he did not come from his dipshit wife Yoko, Sean got all the cash and look how great he is. John Lennon dies and Oprah took his place as the biggest hypocritte on Earth.Paul is a genius and wrote the majority of the great songs , Hey Jude, Yesterday etc. So lets just take John Lennon out of any conversation, he would be in jail for no child support if he pulled his bullshit today.I dont see too many people complaining about much except lack of variety in set lists actually. Which is actually becoming less of a problem with every show. Dont mean to jump on you dude, but I loathe that freebird lil bitch.Well said. Despite being a Lennon fan (his music only), I could not agree with you more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leisure Rules Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 I think that you should go out with a beautiful lady, get laid and dont think too much. Buy CD WHEN IT COMES OUT, listen to it with your girl. The answers will come then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avg_ Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 HeyA lot of people complain that Axl continuing on with the GN'R name was a bad move, and that the GN'R of today isn't really GN'R. Well, a question...If Paul McCartney and George Harrison left the Beatles in 1969, but Lennon and Ringo continued on as the Beatles, and let's say a few years later, released songs which would've been Lennon solo songs such as "Give Peace a Chance" or "Happy Xmas (War is Over)" could it have been legitimized as being the Beatles?I think Axl made the wrong move in delaying the album for so long. If he had released an album in 1997 after Slash left, and some albums after that as well, I think many more people (and the media in general) would recognize it as being GN'R, especially if the albums were good and GN'R toured to support them and the new members gave interviews.Your Thoughts?John Lennon is a dead hypocritte who sat on Merv Griffin spouting "Peace, love and dope" but alienated his own first son because he did not come from his dipshit wife Yoko, Sean got all the cash and look how great he is. John Lennon dies and Oprah took his place as the biggest hypocritte on Earth.Paul is a genius and wrote the majority of the great songs , Hey Jude, Yesterday etc. So lets just take John Lennon out of any conversation, he would be in jail for no child support if he pulled his bullshit today.I dont see too many people complaining about much except lack of variety in set lists actually. Which is actually becoming less of a problem with every show. Dont mean to jump on you dude, but I loathe that freebird lil bitch.right on man!, i have constant arguements with my girlfriend over this stupid fucker lennon, for someone who sings about peace, and preached peace, the idiot couldnt even find inner peace, nothing but a stupid hypocrite, i look at lennon now, look at the time his peace shit was released, and came to one conclusion, his songs were memorable, but alot of people were striving for peace at that time, i think he had his eye on the dollar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen8R Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 For me Axl is and allways was GnR so i don't mind either way Yeah, all you have to do is listen to the old members solo/current projects and it becomes obvious who was the talent in GNR. That isn't to bash the old guys either, I still listen to a bit of VR and Slash is still my fav guitarist of all time, but Guns N' Roses was primarily led by Axl who is the most musicaly talented.A8R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triplea Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 For me Axl is and allways was GnR so i don't mind either way Yeah, all you have to do is listen to the old members solo/current projects and it becomes obvious who was the talent in GNR. That isn't to bash the old guys either, I still listen to a bit of VR and Slash is still my fav guitarist of all time, but Guns N' Roses was primarily led by Axl who is the most musicaly talented.A8RAgree... When I first started listening to GNR and posting on forums on the internet I always defended Slash and said GNR is not GNR without him. I've changed my opinion since that time. After seeing GNR twice this summer in Norway I feel that GNR need Axl the most. No doubt about it, he is talented. When GNR was in their heyday with Slash, Duff.. they really rocked. However, times are changing and so has GNR. The new line-up is great and it's a kick-ass band. AND it still has the GUNS N' ROSES feel to it. In my opinion. Axl has really pulled thing thing together. Well done Axl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opax Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 (edited) HeyA lot of people complain that Axl continuing on with the GN'R name was a bad move, and that the GN'R of today isn't really GN'R. Well, a question...If Paul McCartney and George Harrison left the Beatles in 1969, but Lennon and Ringo continued on as the Beatles, and let's say a few years later, released songs which would've been Lennon solo songs such as "Give Peace a Chance" or "Happy Xmas (War is Over)" could it have been legitimized as being the Beatles?I think Axl made the wrong move in delaying the album for so long. If he had released an album in 1997 after Slash left, and some albums after that as well, I think many more people (and the media in general) would recognize it as being GN'R, especially if the albums were good and GN'R toured to support them and the new members gave interviews.Your Thoughts?John Lennon is a dead hypocritte who sat on Merv Griffin spouting "Peace, love and dope" but alienated his own first son because he did not come from his dipshit wife Yoko, Sean got all the cash and look how great he is. John Lennon dies and Oprah took his place as the biggest hypocritte on Earth.Paul is a genius and wrote the majority of the great songs , Hey Jude, Yesterday etc. So lets just take John Lennon out of any conversation, he would be in jail for no child support if he pulled his bullshit today.I dont see too many people complaining about much except lack of variety in set lists actually. Which is actually becoming less of a problem with every show. Dont mean to jump on you dude, but I loathe that freebird lil bitch.I was kinda hoping they give that guy that shot John Lennon parol so he could take out the next victim on his hit list who surely must be Oprah Edited November 5, 2006 by Opax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luvaxl4ever Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 HeyA lot of people complain that Axl continuing on with the GN'R name was a bad move, and that the GN'R of today isn't really GN'R. Well, a question...If Paul McCartney and George Harrison left the Beatles in 1969, but Lennon and Ringo continued on as the Beatles, and let's say a few years later, released songs which would've been Lennon solo songs such as "Give Peace a Chance" or "Happy Xmas (War is Over)" could it have been legitimized as being the Beatles?I think Axl made the wrong move in delaying the album for so long. If he had released an album in 1997 after Slash left, and some albums after that as well, I think many more people (and the media in general) would recognize it as being GN'R, especially if the albums were good and GN'R toured to support them and the new members gave interviews.Your Thoughts?John Lennon is a dead hypocritte who sat on Merv Griffin spouting "Peace, love and dope" but alienated his own first son because he did not come from his dipshit wife Yoko, Sean got all the cash and look how great he is. John Lennon dies and Oprah took his place as the biggest hypocritte on Earth.Paul is a genius and wrote the majority of the great songs , Hey Jude, Yesterday etc. So lets just take John Lennon out of any conversation, he would be in jail for no child support if he pulled his bullshit today.I dont see too many people complaining about much except lack of variety in set lists actually. Which is actually becoming less of a problem with every show. Dont mean to jump on you dude, but I loathe that freebird lil bitch.I was kinda hoping they give that guy that shot John Lennon parol so he could take out the next victim on his hit list who surely must be OprahYou're an idiot then; if you don't like Oprah, don't watch her, its really quite simple............ANYWAY, I'd have far more respect for Axl if he would have let the name go...its not Guns n' roses without the Guns; and based on the demos/leaks and the stuff that Slash, Duff, Izzy have done since they've left, it clearly was the collaboration of them all that made them so great. Although they all put on kickass shows, there is no more magic ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 I think the members of the band decide. Like if Paul had gone on as The Beatles and George and Ringo said it was great then fine. But they probably would have said "eh eh calm down."But in GNR case Slash and Duff and just about everyone took issue with Axl's decisions. Axl showed no respect for them. But fuck them!!! He out played them in all departments. You snooze you lose.Axl owns GNR and seems to doing quite well all round. This ain't rock n roll, this is genocide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohyesindeed Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 (edited) HeyA lot of people complain that Axl continuing on with the GN'R name was a bad move, and that the GN'R of today isn't really GN'R. Well, a question...If Paul McCartney and George Harrison left the Beatles in 1969, but Lennon and Ringo continued on as the Beatles, and let's say a few years later, released songs which would've been Lennon solo songs such as "Give Peace a Chance" or "Happy Xmas (War is Over)" could it have been legitimized as being the Beatles?I think Axl made the wrong move in delaying the album for so long. If he had released an album in 1997 after Slash left, and some albums after that as well, I think many more people (and the media in general) would recognize it as being GN'R, especially if the albums were good and GN'R toured to support them and the new members gave interviews.Your Thoughts?John Lennon is a dead hypocritte who sat on Merv Griffin spouting "Peace, love and dope" but alienated his own first son because he did not come from his dipshit wife Yoko, Sean got all the cash and look how great he is. John Lennon dies and Oprah took his place as the biggest hypocritte on Earth.Paul is a genius and wrote the majority of the great songs , Hey Jude, Yesterday etc. So lets just take John Lennon out of any conversation, he would be in jail for no child support if he pulled his bullshit today.I dont see too many people complaining about much except lack of variety in set lists actually. Which is actually becoming less of a problem with every show. Dont mean to jump on you dude, but I loathe that freebird lil bitch.julian lennon got a lot of money from john. and, john's first wife had just as much to do with him not seeing his dad. lennon was a junkie until the mid 70s or so when they had sean. cynthia knew about this, and they agreed it would be best for julian to be with cyn.....lennon was a total asshole, but he never outright rejected julian, and he didnt deprive him of money.....did cynthia or julian ever work a day job? i rest my case....not to mention the fact that the beatles were john lennon's band. if you like bland, maudlin, sentimental crap, then paul's your guy. it would have been far more likely for the beatles to continue as john, george, ringo, and whomever than any other way....all three hated paul, and it was paul who broke up the band, not yoko or john. and there's a reason why john is the most revered of the four, it's because he wrote the best lyrics and had a voice with real character. macca's great, but he's a pop singer. john was rock n roll.as far as gn'r are concerned, i think axl has every right to use the name if wants to, despite it being in bad taste in my opinion. to me, gn'r was creatively axl and izzy's to begin with. izzy comes back sporadically and the rest of them are on the outs with him. Edited November 5, 2006 by ohyesindeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dobadog Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 (edited) Hypothetical Thought: Since Axl is the only remaining member, can he continue to call the band Guns N'Roses and sell merchandise under the name (Guns N'Roses). Seeing as there is only one rose (no roses) and no guns (only hired hands) can any of this come under the umbrella that is otherwise known as the *trade descriptions act* or *selling goods under false pretenses* Edited November 5, 2006 by dobadog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts