Smart Move to keep the name "Guns n Roses"

[dizzy68]

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.

[Mandy.]

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

[Tomorrows]

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.

[31illusions]

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!? ?

[Locomotive98]

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.

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.

[GNVR]

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?

[slashisvr]

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.

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

[Thorazine Shuffle]

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.

[slashisvr]

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!!!!

[Thorazine Shuffle]

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.

hey locomotive98 maybe people are coming round!!!!

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.

[HungerForChaos]

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.

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.

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

[Slashead]

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.

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.

[mikegiuliana]

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..

[mikegiuliana]

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.

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

[ShotgunBlues1978]

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

[Slashead]

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... 

[Tomorrows]

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... 

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

[zombux]

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?
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
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? some idiot fans want it

[DeN]

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

that's simple.

[Tomorrows]

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. is this band still Guns N' Roses?
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
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? some idiot fans want it

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