In a perfect world, what would the ideal situation be?

[EmilyGNR]

Emily is that all you do on here?

Actually there are only a small handful of negative idiots on here that rub me the wrong way.

I come here for news and updates on my favorite band, why do you come here?

I am looking forward to the next album and touring cycle, hope at least some of the haters are still here, I plan on gloating.

[mortismurphy]

Read a recent interview with Ricky Warwick about after initially planning to, opting to not release new material under the Thin Lizzy moniker out of respect for the late, great Phil?s legacy. He/they 100% made the right choice, in my opinion.

I wonder if Axl ever struggles with this himself, (obviously no one is truly dead in this case, thankfully, just the classic era of the band) and if that is one possible reason for his decline in creative release.
Obviously it didn?t stop him from releasing Chinese, but perhaps he views things differently having seen how it was eventually received, and after tensions have eased with some former members.

It could be, but I wouldn't fret over it if I'm him.

The name had huge value.  Trying to keep it was the right move.

To be fair, I always take this from the business perspective and little else.  People start talking about legacies, disrespect and "slaps in the face" and whatnot...I don't know.  I sort of roll my eyes.

Its a rock band.  Its a business.  It was in the best business interest of this rock band to maintain the name "Guns N' Roses".

Axl was smart and the other two were dummies, as I see it.

If you want to tell me you wish Axl had been more ambitious trying to plant his flag when he took over to do his own thing, hey, I'm right with you.

But I don't think his failure to take a real shot means putting himself in the position to do so in the first place was the wrong move.

But that sort of sums it up. He got the name. He had a fair amount of goodwill, around rio 3 as I remember, yet he did absolutely nothing with it. He may has well not bothered getting the name and instead put out a bunch of solo albums without the added pressure.

[D-GenerationX]

Everyone has their own battles, burdens and demons to contend with in life.

Your issues and battles have nothing to do with GNR, not sure why you thought it was comparable.

Um, just to review :

You are the same person that was clapping like a seal not one page ago when the argument was made that I (or anyone else you don't like) haven't accomplished enough in our personal or professional lives to weigh in on the rather meager musical output of a rock star over the past 20 years, right?

That couldn't be more on point, correct?  Followed right along, did it?

That was you, yes? 

I just want to make sure there aren't 2 Emilys here, you understand.  Because based on those comments a page back, and then the above comments quoted here....well, there would pretty much have to be.

That was skydog actually.

Yeah, but you were 'bout it, 'bout it.  

It was a solid rationale.  His comparison of a poster's personal life as it related to being able to be critical of the band...man, that was genuisy stuff.

Then draguns does the exact same thing (using a real world example to make a GNR point) and you call it out of bounds.

Why?  Because in the former you liked the point being made, and in the latter, you didn't like the tone.

You are a non serious person that makes non serious posts.

[D-GenerationX]

But that sort of sums it up. He got the name. He had a fair amount of goodwill, around rio 3 as I remember, yet he did absolutely nothing with it. He may has well not bothered getting the name and instead put out a bunch of solo albums without the added pressure.

Oh, yeah. 

Totally cocked it up.  Never took a real shot.  Didn't really lay it all out there, wear it on his sleeve, and be willing to sink or swim and live with the results.  Did not give the new operation the best chance to succeed.

No question about it.

But I still think you keep the name.  Even now, diminished though it may be.  Some, by actions in his control and some, quite out of it.

But the name is everything.  "Guns N' Roses" is more attractive to a promoter than "Axl's Army".  Even if the latter is doing the exact same stage show.

People are dummies.  They are always drawn to a name.

[EmilyGNR]

Read a recent interview with Ricky Warwick about after initially planning to, opting to not release new material under the Thin Lizzy moniker out of respect for the late, great Phil?s legacy. He/they 100% made the right choice, in my opinion.

I wonder if Axl ever struggles with this himself, (obviously no one is truly dead in this case, thankfully, just the classic era of the band) and if that is one possible reason for his decline in creative release.
Obviously it didn?t stop him from releasing Chinese, but perhaps he views things differently having seen how it was eventually received, and after tensions have eased with some former members.

It could be, but I wouldn't fret over it if I'm him.

The name had huge value.  Trying to keep it was the right move.

To be fair, I always take this from the business perspective and little else.  People start talking about legacies, disrespect and "slaps in the face" and whatnot...I don't know.  I sort of roll my eyes.

Its a rock band.  Its a business.  It was in the best business interest of this rock band to maintain the name "Guns N' Roses".

Axl was smart and the other two were dummies, as I see it.

If you want to tell me you wish Axl had been more ambitious trying to plant his flag when he took over to do his own thing, hey, I'm right with you.

But I don't think his failure to take a real shot means putting himself in the position to do so in the first place was the wrong move.

I actually agree with most of your post, it is telling that the vast numbers of people making comments about "legacy", "slap in the face" and "distrspect" only exist on internet forums, which makes up a very small percentage of the actual worldwide fan base.

He doesnt "lack ambition" simply because you had a different release schedule in mind, that is an uninformed opinion and you aren't privvy to the full details of the situation.

[EmilyGNR]

Everyone has their own battles, burdens and demons to contend with in life.

Your issues and battles have nothing to do with GNR, not sure why you thought it was comparable.

Um, just to review :

You are the same person that was clapping like a seal not one page ago when the argument was made that I (or anyone else you don't like) haven't accomplished enough in our personal or professional lives to weigh in on the rather meager musical output of a rock star over the past 20 years, right?

That couldn't be more on point, correct?  Followed right along, did it?

That was you, yes? 

I just want to make sure there aren't 2 Emilys here, you understand.  Because based on those comments a page back, and then the above comments quoted here....well, there would pretty much have to be.

That was skydog actually.

Yeah, but you were 'bout it, 'bout it.  

It was a solid rationale.  His comparison of a poster's personal life as it related to being able to be critical of the band...man, that was genuisy stuff.

Then draguns does the exact same thing (using a real world example to make a GNR point) and you call it out of bounds.

Why?  Because in the former you liked the point being made, and in the latter, you didn't like the tone.

You are a non serious person that makes non serious posts.

And you are an attention whore that makes attention whoring posts for the most part.

Isn't there another group and their real fans that you can go whine about?

[D-GenerationX]

I actually agree with most of your post, it is telling that the vast numbers of people making comments about "legacy", "slap in the face" and "distrspect" only exist on internet forums, which makes up a very small percentage of the actual worldwide fan base.

He doesnt "lack ambition" simply because you had a different release schedule in mind, that is an uninformed opinion and you aren't privvy to the full details of the situation.

Yes, to the first part.  People need to chillax.  It's a rock band, here.

To the second, I don't know.  I got one album in 15 years of a new line-up, and one he didn't exactly bust his ass to put over and give the best chance to make a mark. 

I got to grade on a pretty major god damn curve to call that ambitious.

[EmilyGNR]

Read a recent interview with Ricky Warwick about after initially planning to, opting to not release new material under the Thin Lizzy moniker out of respect for the late, great Phil?s legacy. He/they 100% made the right choice, in my opinion.

I wonder if Axl ever struggles with this himself, (obviously no one is truly dead in this case, thankfully, just the classic era of the band) and if that is one possible reason for his decline in creative release.
Obviously it didn?t stop him from releasing Chinese, but perhaps he views things differently having seen how it was eventually received, and after tensions have eased with some former members.

It could be, but I wouldn't fret over it if I'm him.

The name had huge value.  Trying to keep it was the right move.

To be fair, I always take this from the business perspective and little else.  People start talking about legacies, disrespect and "slaps in the face" and whatnot...I don't know.  I sort of roll my eyes.

Its a rock band.  Its a business.  It was in the best business interest of this rock band to maintain the name "Guns N' Roses".

Axl was smart and the other two were dummies, as I see it.

If you want to tell me you wish Axl had been more ambitious trying to plant his flag when he took over to do his own thing, hey, I'm right with you.

But I don't think his failure to take a real shot means putting himself in the position to do so in the first place was the wrong move.

But that sort of sums it up. He got the name. He had a fair amount of goodwill, around rio 3 as I remember, yet he did absolutely nothing with it. He may has well not bothered getting the name and instead put out a bunch of solo albums without the added pressure.

GNR has accomplished a great deal, regardless of this lie you are attempting to pass off as truth to suit your agenda.

CD was released in 2008, and there has been worldwide touring for literally years, in all type venues.

The Appetite for Democracy Blu-ray was released, there was the TMS appearance, the Kimmel appearance, The Award for lifetime achievement from Revolver GG- numerous interviews, the fan chats from 2008 - hardly "doing nothing".

[D-GenerationX]

And you are an attention whore that makes attention whoring posts for the most part.

Isn't there another group and their real fans that you can go whine about?

The percentage of your posts with no real content, and where you are just calling people names and picking fights is high, way high.

When you just talk to us like human beings, we get some good stuff.  Wish we got more of it, to be honest.

[EmilyGNR]

I actually agree with most of your post, it is telling that the vast numbers of people making comments about "legacy", "slap in the face" and "distrspect" only exist on internet forums, which makes up a very small percentage of the actual worldwide fan base.

He doesnt "lack ambition" simply because you had a different release schedule in mind, that is an uninformed opinion and you aren't privvy to the full details of the situation.

Yes, to the first part.  People need to chillax.  It's a rock band, here.

To the second, I don't know.  I got one album in 15 years of a new line-up, and one he didn't exactly bust his ass to put over and give the best chance to make a mark. 

I got to grade on a pretty major god damn curve to call that ambitious.

Appetite for Democracy was also released, there does not exist a mandatory, fixed schedule for Artists to adhere to in releasing Albums- there were Television appearances and numerous interviews given.

I certainly did enjoy the many shows I attended.

[D-GenerationX]

GNR has accomplished a great deal, regardless of this lie you are attempting to pass off as truth to suit your agenda.

CD was released in 2008, and there has been worldwide touring for literally years, in all type venues.

The Appetite for Democracy Blu-ray was released, there was the TMS appearance, the Kimmel appearance, The Award for lifetime achievement from Revolver GG- numerous interviews, the fan chats from 2008 - hardly "doing nothing".

But nothing has made any real mark.  The amount of people that think the band broke up 20 years ago is still absurdly high.

And of the people that know he's still out there, they can't tell you much about it.  They just know he tours with a bunch of guys named Harry.

That's what people mean when they say this stuff.

He never really got the new product out there and busted his ass to put it over.  Talk about his new material.  Talk about his new band.  Talk about how, oh my god, what we are doing is some of the best stuff I've ever done.

Never really promoted it.  Never really was willing to put his heart and soul out there, weat it on his sleeve, and live with the results.  That being people really digging it, or people shitting on it.

He played it safe.  He took no chances.  And what happened, happened.  Anything good that happened was gravy.

Unlike a Van Halen, that has 2 distinct eras and legacies people are aware of, GNR still, to this day...has only the one.

True or false?

[mortismurphy]

Read a recent interview with Ricky Warwick about after initially planning to, opting to not release new material under the Thin Lizzy moniker out of respect for the late, great Phil?s legacy. He/they 100% made the right choice, in my opinion.

I wonder if Axl ever struggles with this himself, (obviously no one is truly dead in this case, thankfully, just the classic era of the band) and if that is one possible reason for his decline in creative release.
Obviously it didn?t stop him from releasing Chinese, but perhaps he views things differently having seen how it was eventually received, and after tensions have eased with some former members.

It could be, but I wouldn't fret over it if I'm him.

The name had huge value.  Trying to keep it was the right move.

To be fair, I always take this from the business perspective and little else.  People start talking about legacies, disrespect and "slaps in the face" and whatnot...I don't know.  I sort of roll my eyes.

Its a rock band.  Its a business.  It was in the best business interest of this rock band to maintain the name "Guns N' Roses".

Axl was smart and the other two were dummies, as I see it.

If you want to tell me you wish Axl had been more ambitious trying to plant his flag when he took over to do his own thing, hey, I'm right with you.

But I don't think his failure to take a real shot means putting himself in the position to do so in the first place was the wrong move.

But that sort of sums it up. He got the name. He had a fair amount of goodwill, around rio 3 as I remember, yet he did absolutely nothing with it. He may has well not bothered getting the name and instead put out a bunch of solo albums without the added pressure.

GNR has accomplished a great deal, regardless of this lie you are attempting to pass off as truth to suit your agenda.

CD was released in 2008, and there has been worldwide touring for literally years, in all type venues.

The Appetite for Democracy Blu-ray was released, there was the TMS appearance, the Kimmel appearance, The Award for lifetime achievement from Revolver GG- numerous interviews, the fan chats from 2008 - hardly "doing nothing".

One album in a twenty year time frame? Fairly poor. If you have the name and think you are 'gnr' then you have a hell of a legacy to continue. Also, you have to justify your name grab. You have Slash and Duff suing you and complaining in interviews, and the fan base complaining, so you are going to have to come back with something amazing.

Originally, the name carried Axl back into the arenas and headlining festivals of course. Now, Axl plays vegas. In all honesty, there is now not much commercial difference between Axl (with the name) and Slash (without the name).

[D-GenerationX]

Originally, the name carried Axl back into the arenas and headlining festivals of course. Now, Axl plays vegas. In all honesty, there is now not much commercial difference between Axl (with the name) and Slash (without the name).

I disagree.

Is Slash getting the same type of the headlining slots Axl is getting performing as Guns N' Roses?

[EmilyGNR]

Read a recent interview with Ricky Warwick about after initially planning to, opting to not release new material under the Thin Lizzy moniker out of respect for the late, great Phil?s legacy. He/they 100% made the right choice, in my opinion.

I wonder if Axl ever struggles with this himself, (obviously no one is truly dead in this case, thankfully, just the classic era of the band) and if that is one possible reason for his decline in creative release.
Obviously it didn?t stop him from releasing Chinese, but perhaps he views things differently having seen how it was eventually received, and after tensions have eased with some former members.

It could be, but I wouldn't fret over it if I'm him.

The name had huge value.  Trying to keep it was the right move.

To be fair, I always take this from the business perspective and little else.  People start talking about legacies, disrespect and "slaps in the face" and whatnot...I don't know.  I sort of roll my eyes.

Its a rock band.  Its a business.  It was in the best business interest of this rock band to maintain the name "Guns N' Roses".

Axl was smart and the other two were dummies, as I see it.

If you want to tell me you wish Axl had been more ambitious trying to plant his flag when he took over to do his own thing, hey, I'm right with you.

But I don't think his failure to take a real shot means putting himself in the position to do so in the first place was the wrong move.

But that sort of sums it up. He got the name. He had a fair amount of goodwill, around rio 3 as I remember, yet he did absolutely nothing with it. He may has well not bothered getting the name and instead put out a bunch of solo albums without the added pressure.

GNR has accomplished a great deal, regardless of this lie you are attempting to pass off as truth to suit your agenda.

CD was released in 2008, and there has been worldwide touring for literally years, in all type venues.

The Appetite for Democracy Blu-ray was released, there was the TMS appearance, the Kimmel appearance, The Award for lifetime achievement from Revolver GG- numerous interviews, the fan chats from 2008 - hardly "doing nothing".

One album in a twenty year time frame? Fairly poor. If you have the name and think you are 'gnr' then you have a hell of a legacy to continue. Also, you have to justify your name grab. You have Slash and Duff suing you and complaining in interviews, and the fan base complaining, so you are going to have to come back with something amazing.

Originally, the name carried Axl back into the arenas and headlining festivals of course. Now, Axl plays vegas. In all honesty, there is now not much commercial difference between Axl (with the name) and Slash (without the name).

As hard as you are trying here to paint the situation as dark and dire, the truth is an Album was released in 2008, a DVD/Blu-ray was released in 2014, there has been years of touring and two residencies- there is a new Album in the works and it is far from the dreary picture you try to paint.

I enjoyed both of the residencies, it was great to be able to attend multiple shows without travelling, enjoyed Hammerstein for the same reason.

If all you are going to do is whine here, why not go find a band you DO enjoy and stop bringing your toxic negativity here.

[EmilyGNR]

Originally, the name carried Axl back into the arenas and headlining festivals of course. Now, Axl plays vegas. In all honesty, there is now not much commercial difference between Axl (with the name) and Slash (without the name).

I disagree.

Is Slash getting the same type of the headlining slots Axl is getting performing as Guns N' Roses?

He is not.

You can argue the point of him headlining arenas and large venues but the size of the venues is not comparable to the ones GNR plays.

[D-GenerationX]

Originally, the name carried Axl back into the arenas and headlining festivals of course. Now, Axl plays vegas. In all honesty, there is now not much commercial difference between Axl (with the name) and Slash (without the name).

I disagree.

Is Slash getting the same type of the headlining slots Axl is getting performing as Guns N' Roses?

He is not.

You can argue the point of him headlining arenas and large venues but the size of the venues is not comparable to the ones GNR plays.

I totally agree.

Whenever Axl re-emerges, with whoever he brings out with him, he would have a better chance at a headlining gig than Slash, who has been out there this whole time with the same band.

[mortismurphy]

Originally, the name carried Axl back into the arenas and headlining festivals of course. Now, Axl plays vegas. In all honesty, there is now not much commercial difference between Axl (with the name) and Slash (without the name).

I disagree.

Is Slash getting the same type of the headlining slots Axl is getting performing as Guns N' Roses?

I would agree if you are talking about anything up to and including, around 2011. Now I see them about on par. These little casinos are fairly embarrassing. There is also that tour which was sexed up as 'up close and personal' to disguise sagging sales. Do you believe Axl could headline another Rio now? You have to admit, his stock has fallen quite drastically the last few years.

[pilferk]

It's so great to come back and read the same stuff about the same topics written by the same people saying the same things.

Especially when so much of it has not only been rehashed into oblivion, but, in some cases, demonstrated to be so wrongheaded based on actual "real world" events, situations, conditions, etc.

Anyway...carry on.

[sky dog]

no doubt....back to the name issue.

Mortis, in 2013, Gnr headlined the Governors Ball...a pretty big festival in the States...

http://heavy.com/entertainment/2013/06/governors-ball-2013-tickets-lineup-preview-transportation/

don't let the facts get in the way of a good story though. 

[Ginger King]

no doubt....back to the name issue.

Mortis, in 2013, Gnr headlined the Governors Ball...a pretty big festival in the States...

http://heavy.com/entertainment/2013/06/governors-ball-2013-tickets-lineup-preview-transportation/

don't let the facts get in the way of a good story though. 

I saw both Guns n Roses and Slash in 2013.  One of them was a headlining act...the other opened for Def Leppard.

Sorry Mortis, even today, Axl and Guns still carry more star power than Slash and co.