Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Who is a bigger name is music..... Guns n Roses (or) Velvet Revolver? If Axl changed the name of the band he would be doing a disservice to himself. There is a lot of Money and notoriety in the name "Guns n Roses". If Axl lost that name he would be losing most of his identity along with it. When people hear the name "Guns n Roses" their ears perk up and they pay attention. Start calling it the Axl Rose Band or some other obscure name and you'll end up with a band who has to start over from scratch. It is definitely the best marketing move to keep the "Guns n Roses" identity alive even though it's only a shell of it's former existence.

Exactly! It's all about the name. Half of the people at the shows wouldn't be there if the band had another name.

It aint all about money, you should know that of Axl right now. If he were a sell out wed have had CD 6 years ago.

Yes , it is a smart move to keep the name GN'R. But to quote Matt Sorum "it's as if Paul Mcartny when around touring and calling himself the "Beatles"? It ain't the same. The only thing that has impressed the hell out of me is "better". I can't get enough of it!? ?:rofl:

And if it was about the music then he wouldnt have screwed his bandmates over in order to get the GNR name. He couldve released several solo albums in the time its taken for this album and we would probably still have the proper Guns lineup.

Id say its all about the money. He couldve stayed happily retired from Guns whilst doing his own thing insted of tarnishing a bands legacy thats been defunct since about 1993.

I never really agreed with Axl keeping the GNR name.  If one member leaves, not a big deal.  But when everyone is gone, it's a different story.  He would have been better off going solo.  His following would have been as strong, if not stronger as a solo artist.  Why hang on to the name?

i was guna post a big answer to this sounding something like that^^^ : ok:

Axl keeping the name Guns N Roses will be his downfall.

Axl needs to respect the original band by giving up the name.

Axl needs to respect the new band by giving the band it's own name.  They deserve their own name.

The new GNR will always live in the shadow of the original GNR, and thats sad.

well said, hey locomotive98 maybe people are coming round!!!! : ok: :rofl:

I don't know about that, but ask around.  I've been around a long time and this has always been my stance.  Even in the late 90's on the GNRonline board days.  And I got hammered for my opinions then as well. ;D

They left! He was there before any of them, therefore the name belongs to him if he chooses to keep it.

So true ! I've been saying that for years too ! Everything would be easier if he dropped the name...
A great weight off Axl's and his new bandmates' minds.

of course it's smart but it's decieving too... Axl knows people flock when they hear gnr is playing.. it's like saying ac/dc is playing or metallica people just come.. Axl wouldn't be getting carted around europe playing all these gigs if he was calling his band what it is as a solo act..

that all makes perfect sense, give the guys their own shot as a band and axl should realise gnr broke up..

I don't think it's so much a financial situation.  If Axl only cared about money, CD would've been released a long time ago.  But I do think a lot of it has to do with ego.  Looking back to the period following the UYI tours the band was really too unstable to survive.  Axl was battling his personal demons and Slash and Duff were both drugged up and drunk most of the time.  Axl wanted to take GnR in a different musical direction, Slash and Duff didn't and ultimately quit the band.  I think a lot of the reason that Axl kept the name is that from his point of view, GnR didn't break up, the other members quit one by one and he said I'm not gonna give up the name because you guys quit, since I didn't want the band to break up. 

The way that GnR evolved was different than most bands.  Most bands decide they're going to break up, GnR never did that.

They aren't the only band that's done something similar either.  Deep Purple went through similar lineup changes and retained their name, although they broke up before reforming again with one of the classic lineups again.  But Deep Purple has existed with 4 lead singers, 4 different guitarists, 3 bass players, and 2 keyboard players.  Ian Paice is the only member who's been around for every iteration of the band, but it doesn't seem like people make as big a deal over that

Maybe all those line-up changes you've mentioned have something to do with the fact that nobody cares about Deep Purple anymore...  ;D

Not too many people care about Guns these days either man.

right. now my question. when should he have changed the name from GNR to something else? let's read the history.

1985 - original members including Tracii Guns who given his name to GNR are leaving. is this band still Guns N' Roses? :confused:
1990 - Steven Adler is fired. the band is starting to collapse. the fight for the power is starting.
1991 - Izzy, the last original member besides Axl leaves the band. Izzy will be back just for a few shows in 1993 to help because Gilby broke his hand.
1994 - Gilby Clarke's work is ending and he's quit from the band. damn no, one personal change is not a reason to rename the band, is it?
1996 - Slash leaves. Matt and Duff are still in the band. should we change the name right now? umm...
1997 - Matt lets himself fired. maybe this is the opportunity to change the name :)
1998 - Robin Finck, maybe Chris Vreena or Josh Freese are in the band, but Duff is still a member. so we can't change the name, right?
1999 - Duff finally quits and Tommy Stinson from Replacements replaces him - and he can do it pretty well :) what about now, will we change the name of the band when we're going to release a first single in 6 years? and what about Robin? he's leaving the band. we have to rename... uhh... no we can't
2000 - the new lineup is done. Buckethead and Brain join the band. damn. seems we missed the right year to rename the band :hihi:
2002 - Paul Tobias quits the band and Richard is joining. who the hell is this guy? this is not Guns N' Roses man, this looks gay. they can't even properly finish the tour. there are riots, they try to act like old GNR? that's gay
2004 - Buckethead leaves.
2006 - Ron Thal is joining the band and GNR are finally back, stronger than ever. what about renaming the band now? :nervous: some idiot fans want it :hihi:

Axl is Guns N'Roses like Robert Smith is The Cure.

that's simple.

Zing, this is a great post. Sums it all up.  :peace:

axl is not gnr because he would have never been famous alone... SCOM is their mega hit that propelled afd, that song has more then just vocals .. Listen to any afd song or popular gnr hit and they were a group effort.. There's no denying gnr was a guitar rock band... To me that is like saying zepplin was plant


zombux in my eyes it ended when izzy left.

they were a group effort, and it will be the same effort with the new band, so what ?

of course it's not Axl alone with his piano.

well you said axl =gnr, so I expressed my opion..

You can't just switch guns n roses like some gay band as if it was nickleback.. Gnr were household names, any rock fan knew axl n slash, like perry or tyler or jagger richards... I'll never get why people consider a band with no members from their glory days still gnr.. It's basically an entire tour selling because of the gnr name.. Shit what ever happened to fan loyalty to a band, you love? a band from 87 that sold 90 million albums then in 2006 the entire band is different and you still call it gnr and love them... They play mostly old gnr music..

I suppose when people are young and didn't really experience the real gnr that today as long as they see axl rose and he pretends it's gnr it's all good or if axl has always been their favorite the rest don't count

i'm 34 and i saw "the original band" in 1992 at Vincennes.

the new band is just better, and i'm more excited by the new stuff than the old appetite one.

the fact is you can replace every member but not Axl.

look at Velvet Revolver : 3 "former" members, does it sounds like Guns N'Roses ? not at all.

According to Duff's biography on this site http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/bios/duff.htm, he left the band in August 1997, not in 1999...

In my opinion, the beginning of the end was in 1990 when Steven got fired... The band's sound changed completely with Matt. Not a good thing...
We really were near of the end when Izzy left... The end of GNR happened when Slash tendered his resignation in 1996. :crying:
 
Slash can't be replaced. He's a GNR symbol, just like Axl.

VR doesn't have to sound like gnr though... Matt is a replacement..I'm sure they could use samples like ftp musically and sound like a lost illusion's track.. New band is better, finck fucks up all the solos from scom nr and other afd songs.. Anyways how good they are as players doesn't make it ok to be called gnr..

Ok you go enjoy the axl rose band  stuff and I'll take the best rock album out there that took a fraction of the time done by gnr :beer:

I am excited for cd because i'm an axl rose fan just like any other ex member from afd..

true. I like VR but I don't consider them GNR.

but why would you consider "velvet revolver" guns n roses? I look at them as a different band so I don't expect gnr.. Duff has lots of punk influence

you lose izzy n slash gnr is over... izzy the great song writer, slash the axe man on all those amazing solos.. Plus you got dizzy reed :no:

it must be a joke.
Robin just propel Sweet Child to another level, more modern & arty.
he's the best thing who happened to Guns since Sorum left  :hihi:

sure but many people consider them as "new guns n' roses" and are awaiting something like the old band - and they're disappointed and bash scott weiland ;)

so Slash, Duff & Matt are just studio musicians ?
they change their singer and they totally change their music ?

ok, now i get it.  :hihi:

Well I don't consider them as new gnr, slash matt dizzy all worked on snakepit but I didn't think of gnr either.. There were big long solos but it sounded different to me..

Well matt technically is... I think when you start a group that has scott weiland you don't want to just be gnr minus axl.. I hear some gnr in vr, but I also hear a lot of stp infulence.. When I hear a song like slither I don't care what it sounds most like ,I just know it rocks

sure I can see it the same way - snakepit, VR and other solos were great but not GNR. current GNR are GNR, nothing ended for me, things have just changed. I don't care much who exactly is in the band, as long as they do music I like. and I like all music by GNR - both AFD and Illusions stuff, and the new material sounds very promising.

Well, see to me gnr was a certain group of people or at least had to have certain members in it based on their style.. It's not typical to just love any band out there, it's something that happens naturally ..People feel in love with gnr when they came out for many different reasons, only one gnr made it big..

Now it's more like whoever axl hires is gnr and that's it.. To me that's not a band, axl owns everything and everyone can hit the road if they don't follow axl's lead, no one can talk about anything.. That;'s not a band to me and definetly is not gnr,..  I've never been into a band so much that had not one album.. When one man controls eevrything it's not  aband it's a solo project with a famous band name..

Just wanted to say for the sake of axl and his new band I think if he didn't use the name you would have seen exactly how many people were into this band and axl's work instead of the backlash of old guns fame..

It's like cd could sell 3 million albums, but how many of them were because they loved the new music and had genuine interest in new gnr only?

Could axl have toured twice already without an album if he didn't have the gnr name as a security blanket or had that much money to spend, would he have been getting pampered across europe if he didn't have the name?.. ANy other band that did this they'd get picked apart by this forum.. I remember when vr released 3 covers people bitched and moaned but it's cool for axl to use the name, tour twice in four years with rehash and have 8 guys onstage which have changed several times since oh my god came out.. people need to be consistent, play both sides..

Everyone wants to act like the shows are selling and what not because f the new band, but it really has zero to do with the new band, this lineup could change again tomorrow and then start a new tour and the results would be the same.. as long as GNR is on the billboard it will sell.. When little piss head kids are wearing gnr afd t shirts that know nothing about gnr then you know the name is bigger then anyone in the band,,

It aint just how they play, its who is doing the playing.

agreed, i hate it when people say

"this is guns n roses!!!" about the new line up. its not.

axl should change the name, its not like he cant still play gnr songs live anyway, as he wrote or co wrote half of them.

Exactly.
Axl can play GNR songs if he wants, but he's not in GNR anymore. Paul McCartney plays some Beatles' songs live, it doesn't mean he's The Beatles.

*GLING GLING* come one people, we're on 2006, not 1986.

even in the Stones there was some line up changes.
in The Cure Robert Smith is the only original member, it's still The Cure.

the fact is : if Axl didn't obtained the name, it's Slash & Duff who actually play under the name, with another singer.

Slash tried to take the control of the band to do everything he wants with, Axl wanted the same, Axl won the fight.

and i prefer it that way, because when i see the result in the two camps, i prefer Axl's music A LOT.

now if you can't see Slash, Duff & co left the band a lot of years ago, if you can't see you're not a teenager anymore,
if you can't see Ronald Reagan is dead, what can we do for you people ?

maybe buy a Strokes record, and enjoy it, welcome in 2006.

 

The Cure is a bad example 'cause it was Robert Smith's thing from day one.
Without Izzy and Slash, there would have been no GNR.

I love when people say welcome to 2006, like this group you all worship has accomplished anything at all, like anyone outside of the gnr forums know who is in this band :hihi: So far they get the crowd going with the covers... It's a gnr forum and there will always be gnr fans who could care less about new gnr but like axl rose because of the gnr that had huge success...

Axl rose has had how many players in this band since 97 working on cd, how many producers how muc insite from countless outsiders... he's had zakk wylde dave navaro bucket head.. That's like saying the All star team is better then the regular pro team....

Third year 2001-2002-2006 that they've been playing the same old material of the group they are so much better then, even doing the same two boring covers of LALD & KOHD, new band is so original : ok:

CD has been coming out since 1999 it's 2006, maybe he needs more time to finish the album


and I would never want any members without axl to actually use the name.. I know many of you think because you love axl and think he's the only one that counts this is all cool... GNR broke up, all the members left, maybe one day axl will realise this... OH wait how could he, he's to spoiled and pampered to do promo and have to work for a band without the famous name....


last album of new music was sept 1991 ,the reason that is, is because the band had broke up.. Oh but's it's 2006 so no one counts anymore, maybe when you wait long enough everything that happens can be forgotten and it's OK now :D

A lot of the lineup changes occurred at the height of the band's height of popularity so that argument doesn't really work

is he??? i never knew  :o  :hihi:

So when exactly did they cease to be Guns N' Roses??

When Steven was fired??

When Izzy left?

Was it still Guns N' Roses when it was only Axl, Slash, and Duff or was that another band during the later part of the Illusion era?? There were as many new guys as original members then.

Would it be Guns N' Roses if Slash were still in the band?

See my point....?

for me guns ended when izzy left... It started to go downhill to when they decided to add a keyboard player.. Regardless now there is only one member of gnr, that's not enough..

Steve adler was drugs and band decision... That is different the leaving because of ego, musical direction, or a falling out,.,.,. Once the band  members decide to leave because they can't meet eye to eye then int becomes a break up and the band should end,,

oh yeah, a keyboard player, what a drama.  :hihi:

I like Dizzy but you cant deny that his appoinment represented a big shift in what went on with the band,

Axl started the band. He never quit. He has every right to keep the name, both legally (controversial) and morally (even more controversial).

The vocalist is most often the most significant when it comes to the sound of the band (and Axl is maybe the most charismatic lead singer ever, with a voice that sounds like nothing else in rock history). Hence, VR with Scott does not sound like GNR. If you take away the vocals from VR songs and GNR songs, the similarity will become more evident.

I think we the fans put too much emphasis on the name. A sad bi-effect is that instead of 10,000 die-hard fans at a show there are maybe 3,000 die-hards and 7,000 good-for-nothing mongoloids that just bought the ticket because of the name and "yeah, I remember Paradise City! Great song!" If it were up to me, you would have to answer a GNR quiz to be eligible to attend a show. But that's beside the point.

It was a smart move to keep the name.

I hate when people use the point that the Appetite Era wasn't even the original band.. The band sucked until Slash and Duff got there. That era was Gn'R.  That's the era that was a phenomenon. I think Duff was gone before 99 too.. Anyway, the name should have been changed somewhere around 98 - 99..  Maybe not change it but pronounce the band officially broken up. Its not like they have done shit in the last 8 years. I am sure they could have thought up a new band name..

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

I think a lot of people who pay so much lip service to the old band and what does or does not constitute GN'R would suddenly change their minds if a certain top-hatted guitarist were back in the fold.

Traci guns had zero success to do with anything gnr... maybe the band I began in HS and 3 months later my drummer left then I went on to cement gnr for afd with certain guys ,that would be the gnr, not joe schmo who I threw band togehter for trying to make something No one knows or cares that traci gun was ever in gnr..

if slash as back in gnr at least you'd have the voice and guitars of what gnr was..

There is only one guns n roses like there is only one beatles... You can't just make up band members and act likeit's the same thing, these are not gunners they are just  hired help to give a egotistical millionaire help with HIS album..

You're right, VR doesn't sound like GNR.  That's why it's called Velvet Revolver and not Guns N Roses.

Besides, if you think the new material by Axl and his hired guns sounds like Guns N Roses, you're hearing impaired.  Maybe a song or part here and there resemble GNR, but otherwise, it's an entirely new band with merely a familiar voice.  it's not even rock n roll, it's techno or industrial or alternative rock shit or something like that.


you are 100% right my friend.? The band that Geffen records signed into the partnership of Guns N Roses was Axl Rose, Izzy Stradlin, Steven Adler, Slash, and Duff McKagan.? it is they who are the original members.? those five wrote the songs, those five recorded the songs, those five defined the band.? hence, THOSE FIVE are Guns N Roses.? Any other "members" don't even compare.? everybody knows who GNR is.? Anybody who saw the band live during their heydey knows who it is -- and who it isn't.

That's everything in a nut shell.. Those guys are gnr, they are the 5 everyone knows... Yeah sometimes people come and go when you're trying to start something but in the end it's the guys who get signed and who make the records... Not traci who was in gnr for a few months playing small strip shows

Slash duff steve izzy axl are gnr, they took over the world..

That would be a good start.. Is anyone denying that??