Here Today... Gone To Hell!

As we all know, everyone is in support of Axl Rose and the new GNR.  But here's one thing I've always wondered.  Would we still support the band if Slash, Duff and Matt had kicked Axl out, bought the rights to the GNR name and kept the band going with a new singer?  Some argue that Axl Rose is not Guns N' Roses while some think it's ok.  On the flip side, would it have been ok for Guns N' Roses to live on without Axl Rose as the front man?  Which scenario is better?  To this day, people out there associate Axl and Slash as the core of Guns N' Roses.

I'm curious to see what everyone thinks...

The new band works because Axl found good musicians to replace Slash, Izzy, duff, and Matt so if they could find some one good enough to replace Axl (which I doubt they could) I would support them

No denying that Axl's voice is a major player (as is the voice of any front man).

We have VR who I have to say musically are more my style, (listen to Slither Demo and that has some of the best guitar work ive heard from slash) but Axl's voice would be missed too much. that is why VR is a different band, wheras new GNR can hold onto being GNR because of Axl

Fish

obviously no...
axl is the voice, heart and soul of GNR.. he is the mastermind
VR has duff, slash and matt and in any way it could be GNR.... they were very very importnat but in the end they can be replaced in some ways
new GNR have another members and axl and is GUNS N FUCKIN ROSES!!!

well in that case i would have supported axl for sure.. he will always be my hero.. just like i like gnr better then vr today i would have liked axl better then gn'r if it would be like you were saying.. to me guns n roses is axl in first hand.. i hope people won't be bashing me now :hihi:

No one could ever sing the old GN'R tunes like Axl, period.
On the other hand, the new guys get the job done while playing what Slash and co. used to play, at least that's my opinion

If Slash, Duff and Izzy had kept the band going with a new singer it would have had more credibility than just Axl doing the same...

It wouldn't be easy, but Axl can be replaced, he's not GNR.

Totally agreed. No one person is GNR, even Axl. GNR ceased to exist years ago. The band name is GNR but the band is not.

But we've gone over that before.

Axl is axl you cannot replace him...you know it

No in his opinion Axl can be replaced, accept other people have different opinions to you.

please, he's  the voice and part of the 5.. I guess you guys would get finck to replace jimmy page too :hihi: I love when people are just axl rose fan boys and think cause he fronts the band it's gnr..

it's not gnr without axl rose, and it's not gnr without the other original 4....

I bet all the whoever owns the name is gnr BS would come to screeching halt if the ex members owned it :rofl:

The band broke up, we love axl but we don't need to call it gnr because it's NOT!

Sure the same was said about david lee roth yet van halen did amazing afterwards

I bet this, if steven adler was the owner of the gnr name and they hit europe I bet the shows would still sell out.. That's the power of this name in certain markets...

mike I agree with you and understand your reasoning on most things but seriously steven cant spell his own name..  He would not sell out.. haha

There would be too much pressure on the singer...... it would have to be a wonder boy to make it allright... but lets face it, chances are GNR without axl would suck big time.

My point was the gnr name is the strongest element over anything.. Doesn't matter who is in, that's my opinion..

Axl and Izzy are Guns N' Fuckin Roses! Slash who??

That ignorance is somethink I just can't see the point of. OK Slash who you say, Slash the man that without him GnR would never have been as big as they were FACT, all members contributed somethink that made GnR great and without any one of them they would never have been what they were.

Sl 'i wrote the incredible riffs and solos in songs such as Sweet Child O' Mine and November Rain and basically every GNR song you love' ash

I don't want to start the 'its not GNR without Slash thing again', but you can't deny how important Slash was (and still is) to GNR's legacy

Gn'R without Axl Rose is not Gn'R  ;D


----[lock thread]--------------------------

you're an ass. Slash is important to Gn'R as Axl. Axl and Slash are Gn'R.

Well done living up to your name there chief. How old are you? 5?

I'm with mikeguiliana on this. Just cos its called Guns N Roses it doesnt mean it is GNR.

'Slash who?' - You know the guy, the one 3 guitarists cant even replace.

ha, the horse is about to die. ::)


I don't think so. At least Not in Europe.
So you're saying the name is the reason for your minding this band? You went to Hammerstein for the love of the name and not for that of the music. Tells me how much your opinion on the music/this band counts for.

VR with the name of GNR? My opinion on VR wouldn't change.

A Rose with any other name would smell sweet. 
All the same to me. I'd end up falling for this band whatever it was called if once I heard Chinese Democracy like I did anyway. or IRS, better, OMG, Riyadh.

Axl is the voice, heart and soul of GNR.. AXL=GNR  :peace:

Axl Fucking Rose is the heart and soul of GnR. New GnR kicks the fucking shit out of Velvet Revolver.

Guns N' Roses without Axl = Nothing

Axl is gnr, without him a band could never claim to be gnr.

you guys are asses... I posted the same topic a month ago and it got deleted, and then I got a negative karma point and then I got flamed

GN'R without Axl is Velvet Revolver, Slash's Snakepit etc.

It is there for you to listen to.

It just doesnt work, well, it wouldnt work if it was called Guns N' Roses, I guess it does work for the purpose it serves.

It just doesnt float my boat.

Van Halen is the only group who really pulled off changing lead singers & continued their success financially & artisticly. ?Eddie was really the driving force there, so it worked.

Axl is more associated with GNR than any other member, so I don't think so. I like VR, but you can't really consider VR any form of GNR since Weiland has his own style.

Yeah I'd support them in the same vain I support Axl's band. I'd have issues with them calling themselves Gn'R . It would be lame. It would be like Motley Crue with John Corabi. The only band in my opinion who has been able to pull off the change in lead singer with great success was and is AC/DC. There is no Guns N' Roses without Axl and there is no Guns N' Roses without Slash and Duff. I know Izzy was a huge ingrediant(possibly the main ingrediant) but he was only(I say that with great hesitance) the rythem guy and not a huge part of the overall image and sound of Gn'R.? Yes he did have a huge part to play in the writing of the songs and that could very well be your answer right there. There is no Guns N' Roses without Izzy maybe.? Seriously people just think about it. It'd be like U2 being U2 without Bono or The Stones without Jagger or? Led Zeppelin w Plant or Black Sabbath without Ozzy(that sucked) or the Beatles without Lennon? or Aerosmith without Tyler or Queen without Freddie and then on the flip side all those bands without Richards, Slash, The Edge, Perry Brina May, McCartney, Iomi, Page. I just don't get why people even bother trying to Justify the whole use of the Guns N' Roses name with this new band because in all honesty I think every single one of us knows that even though it is what it is, it's still really fucking lame. :peace:

Yes, but the former members of GN'R came up with the music before Scott came along, so I consider VR, GN'R without Axl.

I wasn't comparing the 2 singers, just the music - I can appreciate what Scott does, he is his own person and only an idiot would think of him as a substitute for Axl.

Funnily enough, I actually like VR's music, but not the lyrics - I just can't get into the band.

I am more interested in their next album as it should be a proper collaberation between the band, Contraband was thrown together in a relatively short period of time, and I am astounded at the success it achieved, Axl take note - simple things work just great.

i associate axl with guns n' roses, slash is long gone.
plus axl is the one i am interested in seeing lead guns n' roses into the future.
so no.


that's funny, since slash hasn't been involved with the band for ten years. get over it, support axl or listen to your old bootlegs.

No it isn't that's two seperate things. GnR with the original/Illusion lineup with a new singer wouldn't be anythink like VR.

For a start it would still be GnR with all the back catorlogue and playing them live, Izzy would be in the band not Dave and Scott Weiland wouldn't be in the band because I'm sure they would pick someone more suited to playing GnR songs live.

If some other unknown amazing singer had of taken over Axl 10 years ago then they might (I express the word MIGHT) just have gotten away with it, but we all know how history has turned out and it is the other way around now.

Guns n Roses is Axl's band.  He was the founding member, and he has always been the leader and the strongest personality.  If Axl was such a pain in the ass then why didnt the band fire him and carry on with a new singer?  Because they all new that he could not be replaced.  They went along with all the madness because they new that without him Guns would be over. 

Anybody else singing Axl's songs would be a total joke, and a new Guns n Roses album with a new singer would have been even more of a joke.  :no: :peace: :smoking:

Yeah Slash is long gone but here's a reality check for ya.... Axl has done fuck all since Slash left. Other than have a ?few demos leak and do two tours(one failed) which were/are loaded with material that Slash wrote he's proven absolutely nothing. ?Stop kidding yourself by pretending Axl has had this amazing career post Slash, Duff and izzy becasue it's just not the case. "Far from it" doesn't even begin to describe it.

And these talks went on about other bands as well when they broke up and brought in different people.  These talks will always go on, but you know what.......it all comes down to the music, and time.  If Axl continues with this band and they eventually put out successful albums and tours, eventually more and more people will accept them for Guns N Roses.  And the kids who are growing up who are 10-18 years old will only know Guns N Roses as who they are today.  Guns N Roses is a name, and just that.  If whoever is in the band puts out good music, then Guns N Roses is legit.  Lets say this happens for example...Over the next 6 years, Guns N Roses with Axl, Richard, Ron, Tommy, Dizzy, Chris, Izzy, Robin, and Brain do very well, selling millions of cd's and putting out numerous number 1 hits.  10 years from now, are people going to be saying "oh, GNR is Axl and Slash"...No, some people will be comparing the two different bands who remember them, but most people will just be saying "GNR is awesome!"   

So that's what I have to say....GNR is fuckin awesome!  Not GNR is Axl or GNR is Slash! 

I think so. Plenty of bands have got new singers.

This is turning into should Axl call the band GNR. A sure way for this topic to be locked or into the dead horse section.

Its inevitable itd go there - or to the old GNR v VR debate.

Slash, Duff and Matt would never have called their new band Guns N' Roses.
If anything, those guys are decent enough to realize that FAB Five is no more.
However, them owning the name and copy right would have ensured more sane and businee like attitude towards the catalogue. For example, they wouldn't be as stupid as Axl was to pass up the opportunity of having Welcome to the Jungle in Ridley Scott movie Blackhawk Down. Can you imagine how much money has Axl lost on it?
I don;t like sell outs, but to me at least, having a song played in an Oscar nominated and probably winning movie does not constutute a sell out.
Even if Axl does legally own the right to the name, morally he has no righ to use Guns N' Roses for the new band he is fronting. I have a huge respect for him as a singer and frontman, and GNR are my favourite band.
I know that Robin Finck and Ron Thal are awesome musicans, but they would be awesome musicians for something like Axl Rose Band, Hollywood Rose, Anything Rose, whatever.
If Mick Jagger kick out Keith Richards and others from Stones, and buys the name, no one in the world expect him to tour under Stones name.
Otherwise people would see him as traitor.
When Vince Neil tours solo, as he does in this moment, he doesn't use Motley Crue name.
I know I will be blasted for this, but I can't please everyone.
GNR are my favourite band, Axl is my favourite singer, but unfortunately it is no more. 
If Axl comes to Toronto, I would prolly go see him, but I will never accept this group as more than Axl + 7 or whatever musicians.

Axl Rose is the greatest frontman ever...without him there is no gnr

It's always been about Axl!

As the Classic Rock mag reporter wrote in the article about the leeds an london 2002 shows "There is only one irreplaceable member in Guns N` Roses and his name is W. Axl Rose"

Absa-fuckin'-lutely!

you can't have GNR without Axl Rose, but as we've seen you can have GNR without Slash or Duff. 

In my opinion, without Axl GNR would have never made it big.  Thats means we (probably) wouldn't even know who Slash, Izzy or Duff even are.  Thats why I think its ok for Axl to use the name.  He made the band big, obviously with the help of the other three, but he was the one that made them a ledendary band, therefore its his band name to use (or ruin).

What about AC/DC? Back In Black is awesome. Not to mention, its the worlds second biggest selling album of all time!

...and Gn'R without Slash is not as good as Gn'R with Slash  :beer:

Absolutely correct

we have gnr without slash and duff so why wouldn't it be possible to have gnr without axl.

but as far as the direction the music has taken i preffer the music done by axl. i don't care if he would've called it gnr or not.

the original poster asked if we'd still support the band if they'd kicked axl out. that's impossible to say. what do u mean by support? i bought contraband and played it a lot and i like it. if i had the chance to go to a show i would. but i like better the songs that axl put out.

we're all here because at one point something that those 5 guys did went straight to our hearts. and now everybody makes choices and says stupid things like slash is better than axl or axl is better than slash. fuck that. i know that all these guys wrote all the songs i listend to all these years and if they chose to go separate ways, it doesn't matter who kept the name but, as far as i'm concerned, i'm relating more to the songs i've heard from axl.

I'm kind of with this one too, but I'd refrase and say GNR without Slash can't be compared.

Even with his playing, Slash was more of an image thing for GNR. He has an unique sound, but so do many other guitarists (i.e. that part is replaceable). His image, however, was/is totally beyond any guitarist ever. Not to undermine the relevance of that, but it doesn't contribute to the music at all. And music is what it's all about.  :yes:

Whereas Izzy was 100% musicianship and was therefore the biggest single roster loss GNR ever suffered!

Slash was not about the image. It just so happened he was an amazing guitarist who wrote killer GNR songs whilst also having a great image.

Izzy was a major blow to the band when he left thats undisputed. Why hes touring with this line-up though is beyond me. Must have a new album out soon.

Neah....wont be GNR without Axl's voice. But still it would be a great band :peace:

"Axl Fucking Rose is the heart and soul of GnR. New GnR kicks the fucking shit out of Velvet Revolver."

 :beer: sad (for slash fans) but true.

And that's why his bands have released GNR-quality material for over a decade now...  :o

It isn't true it's just your opinion, which I don't regard highly at all.

and anyone who wuld say otherwise clearly is tone deaf or just has horrible taste in music  :smoking:

Of course it wont be up to old GNR standards, GNR was a sum of its parts.

How many albums have 'GNR' or Axl released in 10 years?

No guns without Axl!

I\ve always wanted Axl to give his band a different name just to state that he is making music again and that he is evolving musicaly. But if anyone should bare the name of Guns n Roses that shuold be Axl, he found a great bunch och bandmates who know their ways around music.

honestly,since the beginning I don't really care about Guns N' Roses.I only care about Axl.I came to this forum because of him.if he makes another group under the name of 'Axl Appettite'.I will still love him like first time I hear his voice 13 years ago,.still following him,and still buying the cd's.
Axl ,its the only one can be replaced.

I am not a trendy fuck who would say I went to see a gnr show..  I went to hammerstein for several reasons ,first of course was to see axl rose, second was to hear some news maybe, third was to meet all the great people from the forum and talk gnr and of course to hear some classics and hear something new.. But in no way was it because I wanted to see the band.. I'd have the same interest in new gnr regardless of who was in it because axl's in it..  I'm sure plenty of people dislike scott weiland but like slash so they see vr..

ac/dc vh, sabbath.. I mean people act like a singer is impossible to replace.. it doesn't mean I think it's right, but it has happened and has worked..

some of you people sound likie axl rose worshippers, not gnr fans or what gnr was about.. All this snakepit vr shit, well then axl alone was going nowhere hollywood rose..

If axl's voice was on snakepit or some vr tunes you'd all be saying other things, so please already..

No question about it...

there is no more gnr anyways, just axl rose and his hired guns,,,,  No one man owner or not should keep a band going by himself when he was not the sole reason the band sold 90 million albums..

Mike wasn't your point that the gnr name was the strongest element over anything and in your opinion it didn't matter who was in? Or you just forgot to say "as far as Axl is in"?


Incorrect. (otherwise, good post overall tho)

I said this many times and I'll say it again. If not for this Band, chinesedemocratic GNR, I wouldn't be here for sure. Just the same I don't feel like following any 'legendary' band eg, U2 rolling stones, led zeppelin etc who now doesn't make anything particularly fresh to the ear even if I really like their past works.

Yes I feel the gnr name alone is iconic today that it is stronger then any one band member

I feel if slash an duff were in gnr alone they would sell tons of tickets... people hear gnr is coming back they just want to go see them,..

Right now my thing is to see axl rose , but not everyone follows things like we do..

...it's a good question but you forget to admit this :

-Axl is the best front man ever
-there's no singer like him around da'world
-n' no one will never be!


....now can ya understand that GNR it's over without da'cute baby called W. AXL ROSE?uhuh?  ::)

sad but true  :-\

You love axl don't you?  :hihi:
as for the everyone who doesn't follow things like you do and is in the majority of general music fans...each show each release either makes or mars a band/an artist.
In substanse, the talk has concluded with this post.

Oh for the love of god I can't believe how narrowminded most of you people are you sound like a bunch of 8 year olds, Axl 00wns!!, axl is god, Thanks for reminding me that 80% of this forum consists of Axl fan boys (http://www.x2software.net/forums/images/smilies/45.png) Why is it impossible for you fanboys to actually like the old members and give them the respect they deserve? ::) and realise that altough they may no longer be in Guns they will always be a part of it

The only reason? that makes this band Guns n'roses is the name, I like this band but it isn't guns to me and it never will be simple as that

perfect post man

Gimmie a break Jim Bob. If Velvet Revolver were touring and recording under the Guns N' Roses name then hell yeah we'd have "Gun N' Roses" without Axl just like we have "Guns N' Roses" without Slash, Duff, and Izzy. I'm honestly starting to believe that many of you are dillusional.? The only reason we have Gn'R without Slash and Co. is because of who owns the name. For fuck sakes people wake up. Just admit it. We all know it is what it is but stop saying we can have Gn'R without guys like Slash and Duff but without Axl it couldn't happen. I laugh so hard when people make comments about Guns N' Roses being all about the music and not about who's in the band. That's a fucking joke because what you're all saying is as long as the music kicks ass and has the spirit of Guns N' Roses than it is in fact Guns N' Roses. How the hell can you have the spirit of Guns N' Roses wthout Slash, and Duff and Izzy. Izzy helps a bit on this tour but get real. Alot of you people are saying it? could be anyone and anyone on guitar or vocals as long as it kicks ass and has that same Gn'R feeling. Wake up call here for everyone.... this new band may sound good but it does not have the same passion or emotion or spirit as the old Guns N' Roses. It's just people wanting it to so badly that they've convinced themselves it does. IT DOESN'T!!!!? Face it.  Some of you really show your true colors. You sound as if you were never Guns fans to begin with only Axl worshipers if you can so easily say "Axl was, is and always will be Guns N' Roses" or "Slash and Duff were never original members" or "Guns without Axl equals Slash's Snake Pit" I guess That means Duff and Izzy's solo albums are also a result of Guns N' Roses without Axl. Unreal.? The fact that so many people are unable to comprehend the difference between Guns N' Roses and a band useing the Guns N' Roses name is ridiculous.? I strongly disagree with Axl useing the name but it is what it is and I can deal with it. The thing that's near impossible to deal with though is the people who think the use of the name is justified because in their mind this is actually Guns N' Roses. It boggles the mind. The only people in the world who truely accept the name issue are fanatical Axl fanboys and fangirls who show no real objectivness when it comes to this. I think most people here who disagree with the name use would also disagree with VR calling themselves Guns N' Roses. The difference is the Axl lovers think it's o.k. for Axl to use it even if he was surrounded by the members of N*SYNC? but not for the other original four Gn'R members even if those four were all together in the same band.

I think it?s easier to replace a guitar player, drummer etc then the frontman... I think the name says it all... he?s the frontman of the band, the leader, the face... therefore, the most imporant member of a band. The one who we can relate to when concerning any band. That?s what a frontman is. And so is Axl. I can?t even imagine someone replacing him... like, when I hear VR songs I can?t help but always think that Axl?voices would do much better.... now if we had another voice in Gn?R it would just be the end... and why? Cos Axl was and is one of the most important and charismatic frontmen of all time!
But then comes Slash... why the hell does this always end in a Axl VS Slash battle? Because they were Gn?R... they were the most important members of the band. The songs wouldn?t be the same if the lyrics by Axl didn?t have Slash?s riffs... We would have great songs, yes, but with Slash?s contribution it?s a whole different thing. Magic happens u kno? That?s why those songs made history...

Of course the ideal thing would be to have the band with Axl and Slash... lol I think everyone would be happy here, there would be no - points of karma, etc etc... But that?s not the case... we have Axl and other members, who are great musicians as well. But god, we can?t say Robin, Richard and Ron (even the three at the same time lol) can do what Slash did. No way, they?re different, both in image and skills, so the music ends up being different.


So my answer is that I wouldn?t support the band if Axl wasn?t there just like I do support this new one (Nu-GnR).

(lol this looks like a School report.... sorry  :peace:)

No Axl can't really be replaced, but neither can Slash, or Izzy for that matter.

This is kinda funny now as we had the current gnr without Axl tonight  ;D

I agree with you in almost everything except when you say that Axl and Slash were the most important members of the band. Izzy was by far the most important member in terms of writing the instrumental part of the songs but live he was very low profile (and that`s why the majority of people forget his importance in G n`R).  ;)

Axl is really irreplaceable because he is voice is as unique as his charisma and lyrics and without him there is no Gn`R. The New Guns are different from the original band but they kick ass and so does Axl  ;D

Why would anyone want to support any famous band without all of their members accept one.. ?Axl owns the name that is why gnr exists ,he doesn't want to accept the fact the band broke up.. ANy super famous group could switch members and keep getting fans in to see the shows ...

gnr was an amazing band that made amazing music and ruled the world ,today it's just crumbs of the past fueling this.. Gnr took over the world naturally, this is just run off of the past.. people were already interested in gnr, so people going now are more going for sentimental reasons.. Not one new song could be played and no one would care but the forum members..

gnr simply exists because the owner of the name is allowed to keep it going, but that doesn't make it gnr

I support the new band even knowing that they ain?t the original Guns N` Roses. Why? Because Axl still rules as a singer, composer and frontman, the band is great and they play wonderful shows with my favourite songs and great new songs and because Axl and the rest of the band made a great work putting this band together as it is today  : ok:

I don't support Axl with his hired Guns, they are not Gn'R...

If Slash and Duff fot the name and called VR Gn'R, I also would not support them.

they got all the respect they could ever get!!!!

This is just about the fact that Axl choose to stick to his baby and the others left, and I totally understand them, axl was impossible to work with. But now everyone have gone thier on ways and I totally respect that, allthough I can't show any respect for scott since he offended axl in that letter some time ago.

But vr is a good band and they make rocking music. My sympaties however lies with the new guns, I really think they're a band and a fucking good band, I would'nt mind a new name but what the hell, I just want new good music.

how about though we be honest if you have a mega huge group and one day people become difficult to work with and ego and creative differences pull the band apart isn't that a break up? Axl just wants to say look atr me I'm gnr and my friends all torture me from the past yet I play all their music on each tour plus I drag baz n izzy around to look more credible..