Slash has listened to Chinese Democracy

[Grasshopper]

An even better example would be Black Sabbath, I thought Ronnie James Dio was way better than Ozzy. That band had so many lineup changes yet it was still Black Sabbath.  It's sad to realize there are some people who feel that certain old member of the gunners made the band. Slash and Duff weren't in the original GnR. It was Axl, Izzy, Tracii Guns, Ole Beich and Rob Gardner.

I like Guns n Roses, doesn't matter who's in the band as long as the rock hard.

[oldgunsfan]

An even better example would be Black Sabbath, I thought Ronnie James Dio was way better than Ozzy. That band had so many lineup changes yet it was still Black Sabbath.  It's sad to realize there are some people who feel that certain old member of the gunners made the band. Slash and Duff weren't in the original GnR. It was Axl, Izzy, Tracii Guns, Ole Beich and Rob Gardner.

I like Guns n Roses, doesn't matter who's in the band as long as the rock hard.

and when that was the line-up; who ever heard of them other than those that did the club scene in LA?

Slash, Duff and Steve may not have been the 1st members of the band Guns N Roses; but they are the members of the band that recorded and toured for AFD, and for the most part, Live like a Suicide

[gnrvrrule]

Personally, it really doesn't matter at all what the commercial name of the band is.  Even though it took forever and certainly was NOT worth the wait (but what is worth 15 years?), I still thoroughly enjoy this album and had no objections to buying it under the Guns N' Roses name.  Although, plain and simple, this is a solo album.  It couldn't possible be more of a solo album than it is.  The ONLY similarities between this "band" and the old band is Axl, Dizzy (not even an original member), and, well, that's it.  The music is totally different.  Axl himself sounds different.  And they don't even really tour anymore, so it's not like the old songs are being played currently.  It's a solo project under the guise of the Gn'r name.  I know this argument has been made millions of times, but an overwhelming majority of music fans know that calling this project Gn'r is only for commercial reasons, to sell more albums.  If I was Axl, I would do the exact same thing, don't get me wrong.  But it's still not Guns N' Roses.  Anybody who is so obsessed and mystified by genius Axl and his "master plan" will obviously never be convinced otherwise, but any person with a degree of common sense knows that just because it's legally and commercially "Guns N' Roses" does not mean that, in essence, it's anywhere close to Guns N' Roses.  That's all.

[Eazy E]

I know this argument has been made millions of times, but an overwhelming majority of music fans know that calling this project Gn'r is only for commercial reasons, to sell more albums.  If I was Axl, I would do the exact same thing, don't get me wrong.

I don't get this... I've always felt that keeping the name "Guns N' Roses" was riskier in the commercial sense than releasing an Axl Rose solo project.  If anything, keeping the name is only turning people off from buying the album, whereas the music would be more front and center as a solo release. 

[makane]

I know this argument has been made millions of times, but an overwhelming majority of music fans know that calling this project Gn'r is only for commercial reasons, to sell more albums.  If I was Axl, I would do the exact same thing, don't get me wrong.

I don't get this... I've always felt that keeping the name "Guns N' Roses" was riskier in the commercial sense than releasing an Axl Rose solo project.  If anything, keeping the name is only turning people off from buying the album, whereas the music would be more front and center as a solo release. 

Record labels are much more comfortable funding Guns N' Roses than some "other band". It's a known brand, so it opens doors for Axl really. This is how I see it anyway.

[D]

I know this argument has been made millions of times, but an overwhelming majority of music fans know that calling this project Gn'r is only for commercial reasons, to sell more albums.  If I was Axl, I would do the exact same thing, don't get me wrong.

I don't get this... I've always felt that keeping the name "Guns N' Roses" was riskier in the commercial sense than releasing an Axl Rose solo project.  If anything, keeping the name is only turning people off from buying the album, whereas the music would be more front and center as a solo release. 

The guys left, so Axl can keep using the name


It wouldn't be better either to drop the name.

Vince Neil plays Motley Crue songs with a backing band right? when he does this, it sounds just like Motley but guess what? He OPENS for other bands.

When Vince plays the exact same songs in Motley Crue, they headline their own festival.

Axl dropping the name wouldn't have helped any at all as Guns N Roses are a famous brand that people know and most people who don't frequent message forums, probably have no clue that Axl is the only original member.

[gnrvrrule]

I know this argument has been made millions of times, but an overwhelming majority of music fans know that calling this project Gn'r is only for commercial reasons, to sell more albums.  If I was Axl, I would do the exact same thing, don't get me wrong.

I don't get this... I've always felt that keeping the name "Guns N' Roses" was riskier in the commercial sense than releasing an Axl Rose solo project.  If anything, keeping the name is only turning people off from buying the album, whereas the music would be more front and center as a solo release. 

The guys left, so Axl can keep using the name


It wouldn't be better either to drop the name.

Vince Neil plays Motley Crue songs with a backing band right? when he does this, it sounds just like Motley but guess what? He OPENS for other bands.

When Vince plays the exact same songs in Motley Crue, they headline their own festival.

Axl dropping the name wouldn't have helped any at all as Guns N Roses are a famous brand that people know and most people who don't frequent message forums, probably have no clue that Axl is the only original member.

You hit the nail on the head.  Again, to clarify my point to others, my point was not to say that Axl should not release the album under Gn'r or that it somehow tarnishes the name or anything.  It was simply that he is doing it for commercial reasons, since the name Guns N' Roses itself sells.  Believe it or not, some people don't even know Slash isn't in the band or that Axl Rose is the name of the lead singer (my girlfriend was/is one of these people, lol).  So if you release CD under "Axl Rose," a decent percentage of the people that bought the album because they simply recognized the name may have overlooked it.  Good business move by Axl and Co., but in reality, who are we kidding?  It really isn't Gn'r, but again, as long as I enjoy the music, I don't care what the hell name he releases music under as long as we have music from Uncle Axl. 

[BKinNYC]

I know this argument has been made millions of times, but an overwhelming majority of music fans know that calling this project Gn'r is only for commercial reasons, to sell more albums.  If I was Axl, I would do the exact same thing, don't get me wrong.

I don't get this... I've always felt that keeping the name "Guns N' Roses" was riskier in the commercial sense than releasing an Axl Rose solo project.  If anything, keeping the name is only turning people off from buying the album, whereas the music would be more front and center as a solo release. 

Eazy E - I'm so glad you made this post, because something gave me the same thought today, and I didn't know where to post it. 

Anyway - I was flipping around the TV last night, and I came across a Paul McCartney concert.  Now, regardless of what you think about McCartney (I personally like him a lot), I think Axl really should've followed what he did. 

McCartney doesn't call his band "The Beatles" when he goes on tour, or when he releases new material.  But if you see him in concert, he plays a bunch of old Beatle tunes.  I think the general feeling among the audience is that his backup band does a great job, and are thankful to hear those songs again live.  When he releases new music, no one compares it to the Beatles, because he does his own thing. 

I think the general public would've been much more forgiving (and receptive to CD) if Axl would've called it "The Axl Rose Band," but still played some old Gn'R on tour.

[LunsJail]

Calling it the "Axl Rose Band" won't get you $13 million from your record label.  Calling it Guns n' Roses will.

[BKinNYC]

Yeah, I should've clarified:  My argument was coming from a strictly creative standpoint.  On the business side, I realize why he released it as a Gn'R album.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with the next album.  After these sales, I have a hard time believing that he'll get that same amount of money up front.

[eddiesson]

Yeah, I have a massive tattoo of Axl on my forearm yet I hate him...

That's why tattoos are bad.

[oldgunsfan]

Yeah, I should've clarified:  My argument was coming from a strictly creative standpoint.  On the business side, I realize why he released it as a Gn'R album.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with the next album.  After these sales, I have a hard time believing that he'll get that same amount of money up front.

depending on what youbelieve, there are 3 more albums worth of material already recorded

[BKinNYC]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that Best Buy is going to make that deal again.  If you believe the rumors, that's where the band\management recouped the money.

[D]

Yeah but GNR won't need an exclusive deal next time.

Best buy wiped out all the debt for all 3 albums.

So the next 2 will be straight record label profit.

[BKinNYC]

If the album took only a couple of years to make, I'd believe that they wiped out all of the debt.  I think this is a different circumstance.

My guess is the next deal is not exclusive, or if it is, they go through Wal Mart

[ShotgunBlues1978]

If the album took only a couple of years to make, I'd believe that they wiped out all of the debt.  I think this is a different circumstance.

My guess is the next deal is not exclusive, or if it is, they go through Wal Mart

It's been confirmed that Best Buy paid $14 million to UMG for the album and the recording costs were allegedly $13 million or so

Now, I realize that the $14 million isn't pure profit and there are people like management who have to get their cut out of that, but the vast majority of the costs that went into this album have been recovered from that

Then you add into that the fact that the album's already sold 700,000+ copies outside of the US and the money has been made back.  The $13 million, decade in the making albatross is no longer around their neck.  The next albums will essentially be "free" with the exception of creating and distributing the physical product, and promotion