I agree with most of what you have to say, Mr. Intensity.? Axl will present product (better yet, ART), when he's comfortable with it.? I categorize him in this respect with the great Renaissance artists, who may have spent decades on a fresco or a sculpture, but by God, when it was finished, nobody accused them of 'cashing in' or 'selling out'.
There are two minor issues on which I disagree with you, however.? You call Axl THE creative impetus (emphasis mine) of the original GN'R.? I don't think that's a fair assessment.? Certainly, it seems like he was the most motivated, and also the most talented lyricist.? However, I look a song like "Don't Damn Me", and I see why this statement rings a little hollow for me.? Yes, Axl penned some of the greatest lyrics of his career here, but the song itself was written completely by Slash, who brought it to the others as a basically finished composition.? Without the lyrics OR the riffs, it doesn't succeed as a great song.? I'm not disagreeing that Axl had a huge hand in the success of the band (as opposed to, say, Adler).? What I am saying is that he was only ONE OF the major creative influences in the band.? Your original post, methinks, doesn't quite share enough credit for their greatest works.
Regarding the continued use of the Guns N' Roses name, I think quite frankly that it's an albatross Axl doesn't need around his neck any longer.? The only practical reason for keeping the name is to sell more albums (yes, I know Axl feels protective of the name and that it 'feels' right to him to still be using it, but I just don't think that holds water).? I have every faith that Axl will raze the current music scene with the transcendence of Chinese Democracy, but if he's so intent on doing something new, why not make it a truly clean slate?? I think a lot of the criticisms he has to deal with come not from the band breaking up or him working with new musicians, but just from the fact that he seems to be trying to have his cake and eat it too.? When Paul McCartney played Red Square, he did it as Paul McCartney, and people were fine with that.? I guess he could've called his new band The Beatles, but why?? It's not necessary.? Same with Axl.
So yeah, great post.? I love stumbling on well-articulated topics for debate on this site.
great post was an excellent read, I agree 100%
Author