Can we put the name issue to bed...the man's words

[sky dog]

what the hell did Gilby do? Play on a bunch of cover songs....please. The very definition of hired hand. Zero songwriting credits as well.

And he has done nothing of any real note post- GNR.

Agreed.
Gilby has released something like 4 solo albums.
Axl Rose, in comparison, has Chinese Democracy, the Remix album (TBA), Chinese Democracy 2 (Soon come), The Interview with the Vampire soundtrack, Appetite for Democracy, the End of Days Soundtrack, Big Daddy soundtrack and GN'R Greates Hits.
That's 8 to Gilby's 4.
Suck on that haters.

What kind of math is that! Axl has 15 original songs recorded and released over a 24 year period. Good gracious.

[LongGoneDay]

The reality of the situation is that they were NEVER equal by ANY stretch of the imagination...that is the definition of revisionist history. If you think Adler was as important musically and image wise to the public as Axl and Slash, you are out of your mind. If you really want to get down to nut cutting time, Izzy, Duff and Steven never really meant shit to the public. It was Axl and Slash. Period. To say Gnr would be the same today if Steven owned the name is absolutely insane...a very AVERAGE drummer who literally wrote nothing would be more important than one of the most iconic, charismatic lead singers of all time...wow....just floored. Gnr attained worldwide, international success purely because Axl and Slash, to an extent, had the drive to want to be the biggest band in the world. He wanted to be Queen, Zep, Aerosmith all rolled in to one. If it wasn't for his vision and willingness to change, they would have been one album wonders, broke up, and faded in to obscurity. He pushed them to record November Rain, Estranged...hell even SCOM. He pushed them to be more than the Sex Pistols meets the New York Dolls meets Aerosmith. Come on man.....it was never equal. 

I think you're misinterpreting what I?m trying to say.
People put too much emphasis on the name. They seem to think that the fact he owns the rights to the name proves it was his baby, or his vision, his drive and so forth. No, it was a band made up of 5 members that made one of the greatest rock records of all time.
They all made their contributions, and earned the success they achieved. Guns N? Roses was just the name on the label. A name Axl happened to bring in, or suggest. Owning the rights to the name doesn?t equate to being the mastermind. I'm well aware of what Axl brought to the table. He is one of, if not the greatest frontmen of all time. I'm also aware that he had a pretty talented bunch around him, and the power grab did him few favors. The proof is in the pudding.
We have seen what they achieved together, and what they have achieved apart. In Axl's case, stagnation.

[LongGoneDay]

The reality of the situation is that Axl was exactly 1/5 of Guns N? Roses when they made a name for themselves.
Nothing more, nothing less. He just happened to bring the name in. If Steven had brought the name in and the wherewithal to legally secure it, he could do exactly what Axl has done.
Then people could write their revisionist history about how Guns N? Roses was always Steven's vision, and he?d find success regardless of lineup and insert more fantasy bullshit here, and there.

The name alone was worthless until there was a band worth giving a damn about, which was the AFD lineup.
Geffen signed 5 people, not one. Geffen saw potential in a band. Not one member.

Of course Axl went on to secure the name, which was his right. I don?t see a lot of people disputing the legalities of the situation.

More so the moral, and artistic side of things.
From the outside looking in, it appeared Axl thought he alone was Guns N? Roses, and that came across as delusional and egotistical, and rubbed people the wrong way.
Guns N? Roses was bigger than any singular member.

They met their demise when they stopped functioning as a band of equals, and more like a business with a ?leader? and his employees.

Axl JUST brought the name in??  Lol. So when a general manager has a vision of the team he wants to put together and the guys he wants to win with, does he get any credit when that happens?  And let's say this GM also plays on the team and plays a big role.  Let's say he's the point guard.  Does he get any more credit?  Axl put GNR together plain and simple.  Maybe it was dead ass luck how the guys came together, but I don't believe that.  From my knowledge of GNR, Axl was a perfectionist from day 1 with GNR and made sure he was working with the right people.  And then once he had the guys, he played a big part in the music.  Even to this day, although not pumping out music, Axl still finds really talented musicians to join him.  You think that Axl should be seen in the same light as let's say Steven?  Or any other member for that matter?  No he shouldn't because he was and is the leader.  Axl has always been the one out front making the decisions.  And with that, he has always been the one who took the heat as well.  And that's how business works.  When teams win, the GM/coach is praised.  When they lose, they get shit on. Slash plays guitar and wrote a couple songs and riffs.  Axl put the band together, was the voice for the band, the lead singing, did a lot of the writing, and above all...was the one with the vision and made most decisions.  Axl was NOT 1/5 of the band...and that's reality!   Have you had the pleasure and stress of managing anything yourself?  By your comments, it doesn't seem that you have.  Or else you might understand the difference between Axl's role in GNR and let's say Stevens.  I'll tell you what, it's much more difficult to be the GM/coach than it is to be a player.

Geffen saw potential in a band that Axl put together!

Your right, I'm not disputing the legalities of keeping the name.  I'm giving another perspective on why he may have kept the name.  Because it's HIS band!  Your saying it's immoral to keep the name because the guys who were in the band when they had the most success are gone now?

How do you know gnr wasn't a business with a leader when it first started?  Because I think it was. 

See I think you may fall into the trap of thinking it was all Axl?s masterplan, which wether you are conscious of it or not, devalues what the others brought to the table.
There was no singular vision. It was a collaborative effort. Axl was 1/5 of the band. That?s really not up for debate. He was one of the 5 members in the band Geffen signed called Guns N? Roses. They didn?t sign Axl as a solo artist. They liked the band they saw on stage.

I fully understand that Axl was a brilliant lyricist, singer, frontman. That much we certainly agree on. I don?t really think it?s relevant trying to determine who was the most important member. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that together they made some of the greatest music ever recorded, and we also know that they began to gradually implode after the loss of the first member.
Take a song like Estranged. A song solely credited to Axl. It?s a brilliant song, thanks in part to Axl?s great lyrics, melodies but also Slash?s solos, which are equally identifiable with the song. On the flip side, Mr. Brownstone, a song credited to Izzy and Slash wouldn?t be the same without Axl putting his stamp on it.
We could play this game all day.

Guns N? Roses was very much a band in the beginning. A fucking incredible band. Yet, it almost seems to offend people to say that. As if it somehow takes away from Axl?s contributions.

I don?t believe there was one leader per se with the classic lineup. I think those duties were split.
There wasn?t one person making the all the decisions.

I think the way you describe Axl's role in Guns back then closer resembles his role today, and since the classic lineup dissolved.
From the outside looking in, it appears Axl wanted full control, which he later acquired, but didn?t quite know what to do with it once he had it.

[mortismurphy]

It was pure coincidence why that particular line-up gelled anyhow as you had all these different bands and line-ups. Most of the members of the appetite band had played together in some formation or another: Hollywood Rose (Axl, Izzy); New Hollywood Rose (Axl, Slash, Adler); Road Crew (Slash, Adler - briefly Duff); Guns (Axl, Izzy, Duff). It took a series of coincidental happenings for all this to fall into place. Presumably if this was all some, masterplan by Axl, it would have fallen into shape far earlier. Reportedly also (and all the members say this) when it truly fell into place was when they bonded on the Hell Tour. There was no reason before playing the Hell Tour to assume that the appetite band would have shortly disbanded like all the previous bands.

[damnthehaters]

The reality of the situation is that Axl was exactly 1/5 of Guns N? Roses when they made a name for themselves.
Nothing more, nothing less. He just happened to bring the name in. If Steven had brought the name in and the wherewithal to legally secure it, he could do exactly what Axl has done.
Then people could write their revisionist history about how Guns N? Roses was always Steven's vision, and he?d find success regardless of lineup and insert more fantasy bullshit here, and there.

The name alone was worthless until there was a band worth giving a damn about, which was the AFD lineup.
Geffen signed 5 people, not one. Geffen saw potential in a band. Not one member.

Of course Axl went on to secure the name, which was his right. I don?t see a lot of people disputing the legalities of the situation.

More so the moral, and artistic side of things.
From the outside looking in, it appeared Axl thought he alone was Guns N? Roses, and that came across as delusional and egotistical, and rubbed people the wrong way.
Guns N? Roses was bigger than any singular member.

They met their demise when they stopped functioning as a band of equals, and more like a business with a ?leader? and his employees.

Axl JUST brought the name in??  Lol. So when a general manager has a vision of the team he wants to put together and the guys he wants to win with, does he get any credit when that happens?  And let's say this GM also plays on the team and plays a big role.  Let's say he's the point guard.  Does he get any more credit?  Axl put GNR together plain and simple.  Maybe it was dead ass luck how the guys came together, but I don't believe that.  From my knowledge of GNR, Axl was a perfectionist from day 1 with GNR and made sure he was working with the right people.  And then once he had the guys, he played a big part in the music.  Even to this day, although not pumping out music, Axl still finds really talented musicians to join him.  You think that Axl should be seen in the same light as let's say Steven?  Or any other member for that matter?  No he shouldn't because he was and is the leader.  Axl has always been the one out front making the decisions.  And with that, he has always been the one who took the heat as well.  And that's how business works.  When teams win, the GM/coach is praised.  When they lose, they get shit on. Slash plays guitar and wrote a couple songs and riffs.  Axl put the band together, was the voice for the band, the lead singing, did a lot of the writing, and above all...was the one with the vision and made most decisions.  Axl was NOT 1/5 of the band...and that's reality!   Have you had the pleasure and stress of managing anything yourself?  By your comments, it doesn't seem that you have.  Or else you might understand the difference between Axl's role in GNR and let's say Stevens.  I'll tell you what, it's much more difficult to be the GM/coach than it is to be a player.

Geffen saw potential in a band that Axl put together!

Your right, I'm not disputing the legalities of keeping the name.  I'm giving another perspective on why he may have kept the name.  Because it's HIS band!  Your saying it's immoral to keep the name because the guys who were in the band when they had the most success are gone now?

How do you know gnr wasn't a business with a leader when it first started?  Because I think it was. 

See I think you may fall into the trap of thinking it was all Axl?s masterplan, which wether you are conscious of it or not, devalues what the others brought to the table.
There was no singular vision. It was a collaborative effort. Axl was 1/5 of the band. That?s really not up for debate. He was one of the 5 members in the band Geffen signed called Guns N? Roses. They didn?t sign Axl as a solo artist. They liked the band they saw on stage.

I fully understand that Axl was a brilliant lyricist, singer, frontman. That much we certainly agree on. I don?t really think it?s relevant trying to determine who was the most important member. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that together they made some of the greatest music ever recorded, and we also know that they began to gradually implode after the loss of the first member.
Take a song like Estranged. A song solely credited to Axl. It?s a brilliant song, thanks in part to Axl?s great lyrics, melodies but also Slash?s solos, which are equally identifiable with the song. On the flip side, Mr. Brownstone, a song credited to Izzy and Slash wouldn?t be the same without Axl putting his stamp on it.
We could play this game all day.

Guns N? Roses was very much a band in the beginning. A fucking incredible band. Yet, it almost seems to offend people to say that. As if it somehow takes away from Axl?s contributions.

I don?t believe there was one leader per se with the classic lineup. I think those duties were split.
There wasn?t one person making the all the decisions.

I think the way you describe Axl's role in Guns back then closer resembles his role today, and since the classic lineup dissolved.
From the outside looking in, it appears Axl wanted full control, which he later acquired, but didn?t quite know what to do with it once he had it.

You don't think it's relevant to try and determine the most important member?  Well I wouldn't have even brought anything up if it wasn't for your "only brought in the name" comment. 

[damnthehaters]

[/quote]

From my knowledge of that period, it was actually Duff's suggestion to bring in Slash and Adler. Rolling history further on, it was Slash who deliberately sought out and recruited Gilby and Matt as replacements. I think you are also underestimating the importance of Izzy Stradlin for that earlier club period.
[/quote]

Yes, that's why I pointed that out in my earlier post.  My point was that it was always Axls call however.  Other members suggesting things, Axl always had final say.  Am I wrong about that?  That's one definition of a leader. 

[damnthehaters]

It was pure coincidence why that particular line-up gelled anyhow as you had all these different bands and line-ups. Most of the members of the appetite band had played together in some formation or another: Hollywood Rose (Axl, Izzy); New Hollywood Rose (Axl, Slash, Adler); Road Crew (Slash, Adler - briefly Duff); Guns (Axl, Izzy, Duff). It took a series of coincidental happenings for all this to fall into place. Presumably if this was all some, masterplan by Axl, it would have fallen into shape far earlier. Reportedly also (and all the members say this) when it truly fell into place was when they bonded on the Hell Tour. There was no reason before playing the Hell Tour to assume that the appetite band would have shortly disbanded like all the previous bands.

It takes a series of coincidental happenings for most things to happen.  That shouldn't take away from how important Axl was to it all.  And I'm not just Axl loving here.  With his drive and passion, I believe he would have been a huge part of any band at that time.....regardless if some of the other members were in it or not.  My one concern would probably be Izzy.  All this talk of 1/5 is bull to me.  I mean I can see how "technically", yes...1/5.  But think outside the box here.  Axl meant so much more to their success than 1/5.  Then I would say Izzy is right behind him.  Axl and Izzy we're going to be successful at that time!  Didn't matter if Duff, Slash or any other member was apart of it.  Yes, those other members played key roles and helped with the success.  But I honestly believe Axl and Izzy would have found success without them.  I don't know if I can say that for the others.   

[Ginger King]

It was pure coincidence why that particular line-up gelled anyhow as you had all these different bands and line-ups. Most of the members of the appetite band had played together in some formation or another: Hollywood Rose (Axl, Izzy); New Hollywood Rose (Axl, Slash, Adler); Road Crew (Slash, Adler - briefly Duff); Guns (Axl, Izzy, Duff). It took a series of coincidental happenings for all this to fall into place. Presumably if this was all some, masterplan by Axl, it would have fallen into shape far earlier. Reportedly also (and all the members say this) when it truly fell into place was when they bonded on the Hell Tour. There was no reason before playing the Hell Tour to assume that the appetite band would have shortly disbanded like all the previous bands.

It takes a series of coincidental happenings for most things to happen.  That shouldn't take away from how important Axl was to it all.  And I'm not just Axl loving here.  With his drive and passion, I believe he would have been a huge part of any band at that time.....regardless if some of the other members were in it or not.  My one concern would probably be Izzy.  All this talk of 1/5 is bull to me.  I mean I can see how "technically", yes...1/5.  But think outside the box here.  Axl meant so much more to their success than 1/5.  Then I would say Izzy is right behind him.  Axl and Izzy we're going to be successful at that time!  Didn't matter if Duff, Slash or any other member was apart of it.  Yes, those other members played key roles and helped with the success.  But I honestly believe Axl and Izzy would have found success without them.  I don't know if I can say that for the others.   

But it does matter that Duff, Slash, and Steven were there.  None of them (including Axl) were more successful than when they were together (or at least a critical mass of them were together).  That is evident in all of their post-1993 careers. 

Also, you really can't find it within you to see that Slash was going to be successful regardless?  He is widely regarding as one of the greatest rock n roll guitarists of all time.  Pretty sure he (like Axl) would've found success without Guns.

[sky dog]

I think there are more great guitarists out there than great singers.

[The Wight Gunner]

I think FFS have proven the up-shot of all of this debate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGAwp5syXyE 

[Ginger King]

I think there are more great guitarists out there than great singers.

Not if you're looking at the Top 10 of.  Then there are only 10.  And both Axl and Slash make those lists. 

[damnthehaters]

It was pure coincidence why that particular line-up gelled anyhow as you had all these different bands and line-ups. Most of the members of the appetite band had played together in some formation or another: Hollywood Rose (Axl, Izzy); New Hollywood Rose (Axl, Slash, Adler); Road Crew (Slash, Adler - briefly Duff); Guns (Axl, Izzy, Duff). It took a series of coincidental happenings for all this to fall into place. Presumably if this was all some, masterplan by Axl, it would have fallen into shape far earlier. Reportedly also (and all the members say this) when it truly fell into place was when they bonded on the Hell Tour. There was no reason before playing the Hell Tour to assume that the appetite band would have shortly disbanded like all the previous bands.

It takes a series of coincidental happenings for most things to happen.  That shouldn't take away from how important Axl was to it all.  And I'm not just Axl loving here.  With his drive and passion, I believe he would have been a huge part of any band at that time.....regardless if some of the other members were in it or not.  My one concern would probably be Izzy.  All this talk of 1/5 is bull to me.  I mean I can see how "technically", yes...1/5.  But think outside the box here.  Axl meant so much more to their success than 1/5.  Then I would say Izzy is right behind him.  Axl and Izzy we're going to be successful at that time!  Didn't matter if Duff, Slash or any other member was apart of it.  Yes, those other members played key roles and helped with the success.  But I honestly believe Axl and Izzy would have found success without them.  I don't know if I can say that for the others.   

But it does matter that Duff, Slash, and Steven were there.  None of them (including Axl) were more successful than when they were together (or at least a critical mass of them were together).  That is evident in all of their post-1993 careers. 

Also, you really can't find it within you to see that Slash was going to be successful regardless?  He is widely regarding as one of the greatest rock n roll guitarists of all time.  Pretty sure he (like Axl) would've found success without Guns.

Of course they haven't been.  But just because they haven't been as successful after 1993 doesn't lead me to believe that they ALL need or needed each other to be successful.  Times are different now and things have obviously changed, you can't make that statement.  Even if Axl had formed a band of different members back in the day, had huge success, and then broke up.  The same thing would have happened....they wouldn't have had as much success afterwards.  At that time in their lives (young, energetic, passionate, driven, out to prove the world wrong, etc.), it's my belief that Axl and Izzy were going to be successful, regardless of who they were with.  And I'm not saying Slash or Duff wouldn't have been.  But Axl and Izzy were going to be great!  And in my mind, Slash, Duff, Steven (although doing their part) stepped into a gold mine being with Axl....and Izzy.  

[LongGoneDay]

It was pure coincidence why that particular line-up gelled anyhow as you had all these different bands and line-ups. Most of the members of the appetite band had played together in some formation or another: Hollywood Rose (Axl, Izzy); New Hollywood Rose (Axl, Slash, Adler); Road Crew (Slash, Adler - briefly Duff); Guns (Axl, Izzy, Duff). It took a series of coincidental happenings for all this to fall into place. Presumably if this was all some, masterplan by Axl, it would have fallen into shape far earlier. Reportedly also (and all the members say this) when it truly fell into place was when they bonded on the Hell Tour. There was no reason before playing the Hell Tour to assume that the appetite band would have shortly disbanded like all the previous bands.

It takes a series of coincidental happenings for most things to happen.  That shouldn't take away from how important Axl was to it all.  And I'm not just Axl loving here.  With his drive and passion, I believe he would have been a huge part of any band at that time.....regardless if some of the other members were in it or not.  My one concern would probably be Izzy.  All this talk of 1/5 is bull to me.  I mean I can see how "technically", yes...1/5.  But think outside the box here.  Axl meant so much more to their success than 1/5.  Then I would say Izzy is right behind him.  Axl and Izzy we're going to be successful at that time!  Didn't matter if Duff, Slash or any other member was apart of it.  Yes, those other members played key roles and helped with the success.  But I honestly believe Axl and Izzy would have found success without them.  I don't know if I can say that for the others.   

It simply doesn?t work that way. Hollywood Rose with Axl and Izzy wasn?t exactly burning up the charts.
Axl found incredible success with the AFD lineup.
That well earned success later afforded him the luxury of handpicking highly skilled musicians to continue as GN?R after the classic lineup parted ways.
It still hasn?t amounted to much in the way of success. Sure, some people loved Chinese Democracy, but it didn?t come close to resonating with fans on the level of previous albums, even with the money printing moniker attached to it.

Did Axl have the skill/talent to make it regardless of the talent surrounding him? Maybe, but nothing is guaranteed.

In terms of GN?R, Slash was every bit the guitar player that Axl was a frontman. Izzy was every bit the songwriter that Slash was a soloist.
They all stepped into a goldmine.

[mortismurphy]

Yes, that's why I pointed that out in my earlier post.  My point was that it was always Axls call however.  Other members suggesting things, Axl always had final say.  Am I wrong about that?  That's one definition of a leader. 

I think at that stage in the band's history they all had a call. I do not necessarily see Axl as any different here. If you are discussing the recruitment of Slash and Adler in June 1985 then Izzy would have certainly agreed. Don't forget that Izzy quit Hollywood Rose when Axl sacked/had an argument with (depending on whose account you read) Chris Weber and replaced him with Slash. It was the prerogative of any of these band members to quit at any stage. Izzy didn't so he presumably went along with it. We already know Duff agreed as it was his original suggestion in the first place.  There is your consensus.

[mortismurphy]

It was pure coincidence why that particular line-up gelled anyhow as you had all these different bands and line-ups. Most of the members of the appetite band had played together in some formation or another: Hollywood Rose (Axl, Izzy); New Hollywood Rose (Axl, Slash, Adler); Road Crew (Slash, Adler - briefly Duff); Guns (Axl, Izzy, Duff). It took a series of coincidental happenings for all this to fall into place. Presumably if this was all some, masterplan by Axl, it would have fallen into shape far earlier. Reportedly also (and all the members say this) when it truly fell into place was when they bonded on the Hell Tour. There was no reason before playing the Hell Tour to assume that the appetite band would have shortly disbanded like all the previous bands.

It takes a series of coincidental happenings for most things to happen.  That shouldn't take away from how important Axl was to it all.  And I'm not just Axl loving here.  With his drive and passion, I believe he would have been a huge part of any band at that time.....regardless if some of the other members were in it or not.  My one concern would probably be Izzy.  All this talk of 1/5 is bull to me.  I mean I can see how "technically", yes...1/5.  But think outside the box here.  Axl meant so much more to their success than 1/5.  Then I would say Izzy is right behind him.  Axl and Izzy we're going to be successful at that time!  Didn't matter if Duff, Slash or any other member was apart of it.  Yes, those other members played key roles and helped with the success.  But I honestly believe Axl and Izzy would have found success without them.  I don't know if I can say that for the others.   

You've listened to the Roots of GN'R? Hollywood Rose sounded like any other hair band. Alright I suppose but nothing to write home about. They may have been signed and become semi-popular (akin to LA Guns or Faster Pussycat) but it would be presumptuous to believe they would have attained the heights GN'R crawled. Where is your Sweet Child intro going to come from? Who is going to write those punky bass lines? Where is that groove?

[Ow-So7411501]

It was pure coincidence why that particular line-up gelled anyhow as you had all these different bands and line-ups. Most of the members of the appetite band had played together in some formation or another: Hollywood Rose (Axl, Izzy); New Hollywood Rose (Axl, Slash, Adler); Road Crew (Slash, Adler - briefly Duff); Guns (Axl, Izzy, Duff). It took a series of coincidental happenings for all this to fall into place. Presumably if this was all some, masterplan by Axl, it would have fallen into shape far earlier. Reportedly also (and all the members say this) when it truly fell into place was when they bonded on the Hell Tour. There was no reason before playing the Hell Tour to assume that the appetite band would have shortly disbanded like all the previous bands.

It takes a series of coincidental happenings for most things to happen.  That shouldn't take away from how important Axl was to it all.  And I'm not just Axl loving here.  With his drive and passion, I believe he would have been a huge part of any band at that time.....regardless if some of the other members were in it or not.  My one concern would probably be Izzy.  All this talk of 1/5 is bull to me.  I mean I can see how "technically", yes...1/5.  But think outside the box here.  Axl meant so much more to their success than 1/5.  Then I would say Izzy is right behind him.  Axl and Izzy we're going to be successful at that time!  Didn't matter if Duff, Slash or any other member was apart of it.  Yes, those other members played key roles and helped with the success.  But I honestly believe Axl and Izzy would have found success without them.  I don't know if I can say that for the others.   

But it does matter that Duff, Slash, and Steven were there.  None of them (including Axl) were more successful than when they were together (or at least a critical mass of them were together).  That is evident in all of their post-1993 careers. 

Also, you really can't find it within you to see that Slash was going to be successful regardless?  He is widely regarding as one of the greatest rock n roll guitarists of all time.  Pretty sure he (like Axl) would've found success without Guns.

Of course they haven't been.  But just because they haven't been as successful after 1993 doesn't lead me to believe that they ALL need or needed each other to be successful.  Times are different now and things have obviously changed, you can't make that statement.  Even if Axl had formed a band of different members back in the day, had huge success, and then broke up.  The same thing would have happened....they wouldn't have had as much success afterwards.  At that time in their lives (young, energetic, passionate, driven, out to prove the world wrong, etc.), it's my belief that Axl and Izzy were going to be successful, regardless of who they were with.  And I'm not saying Slash or Duff wouldn't have been.  But Axl and Izzy were going to be great!  And in my mind, Slash, Duff, Steven (although doing their part) stepped into a gold mine being with Axl....and Izzy.  

Your argument is totally insulting to Slash, Duff and Steven. The five of them were the right members in the right band at the right time. Chemistry is everything for a band. These five had it. Axl an Izzy were in other bands before Guns. Guess what they didn't make it. They all needed each other. They all came from different backgrounds. They had different influences. But when you brought it all together it created something magical. They have yet to replicate the magic on there own.

You can hire the most talented musicians in the world to be part of your band. Doesn't necessarily mean they will have chemistry when you put them together.

[Ginger King]

It was pure coincidence why that particular line-up gelled anyhow as you had all these different bands and line-ups. Most of the members of the appetite band had played together in some formation or another: Hollywood Rose (Axl, Izzy); New Hollywood Rose (Axl, Slash, Adler); Road Crew (Slash, Adler - briefly Duff); Guns (Axl, Izzy, Duff). It took a series of coincidental happenings for all this to fall into place. Presumably if this was all some, masterplan by Axl, it would have fallen into shape far earlier. Reportedly also (and all the members say this) when it truly fell into place was when they bonded on the Hell Tour. There was no reason before playing the Hell Tour to assume that the appetite band would have shortly disbanded like all the previous bands.

It takes a series of coincidental happenings for most things to happen.  That shouldn't take away from how important Axl was to it all.  And I'm not just Axl loving here.  With his drive and passion, I believe he would have been a huge part of any band at that time.....regardless if some of the other members were in it or not.  My one concern would probably be Izzy.  All this talk of 1/5 is bull to me.  I mean I can see how "technically", yes...1/5.  But think outside the box here.  Axl meant so much more to their success than 1/5.  Then I would say Izzy is right behind him.  Axl and Izzy we're going to be successful at that time!  Didn't matter if Duff, Slash or any other member was apart of it.  Yes, those other members played key roles and helped with the success.  But I honestly believe Axl and Izzy would have found success without them.  I don't know if I can say that for the others.   

But it does matter that Duff, Slash, and Steven were there.  None of them (including Axl) were more successful than when they were together (or at least a critical mass of them were together).  That is evident in all of their post-1993 careers. 

Also, you really can't find it within you to see that Slash was going to be successful regardless?  He is widely regarding as one of the greatest rock n roll guitarists of all time.  Pretty sure he (like Axl) would've found success without Guns.

Of course they haven't been.  But just because they haven't been as successful after 1993 doesn't lead me to believe that they ALL need or needed each other to be successful.  Times are different now and things have obviously changed, you can't make that statement.  Even if Axl had formed a band of different members back in the day, had huge success, and then broke up.  The same thing would have happened....they wouldn't have had as much success afterwards.  At that time in their lives (young, energetic, passionate, driven, out to prove the world wrong, etc.), it's my belief that Axl and Izzy were going to be successful, regardless of who they were with.  And I'm not saying Slash or Duff wouldn't have been.  But Axl and Izzy were going to be great!  And in my mind, Slash, Duff, Steven (although doing their part) stepped into a gold mine being with Axl....and Izzy.  

Your argument is totally insulting to Slash, Duff and Steven. The five of them were the right members in the right band at the right time. Chemistry is everything for a band. These five had it. Axl an Izzy were in other bands before Guns. Guess what they didn't make it. They all needed each other. They all came from different backgrounds. They had different influences. But when you brought it all together it created something magical. They have yet to replicate the magic on there own.

You can hire the most talented musicians in the world to be part of your band. Doesn't necessarily mean they will have chemistry when you put them together.

Thank you.  I'm not sure why it's so hard to recognize this.  By minimizing the importance of the original lineup, are people somehow validating the current lineup or state of affairs?  The need to prove Axl was right (in keeping the name) because he was always the leader/creator and all others (except Izzy) were just lucky to be picked by Axl is just weird...and factually incorrect.

[damnthehaters]

It was pure coincidence why that particular line-up gelled anyhow as you had all these different bands and line-ups. Most of the members of the appetite band had played together in some formation or another: Hollywood Rose (Axl, Izzy); New Hollywood Rose (Axl, Slash, Adler); Road Crew (Slash, Adler - briefly Duff); Guns (Axl, Izzy, Duff). It took a series of coincidental happenings for all this to fall into place. Presumably if this was all some, masterplan by Axl, it would have fallen into shape far earlier. Reportedly also (and all the members say this) when it truly fell into place was when they bonded on the Hell Tour. There was no reason before playing the Hell Tour to assume that the appetite band would have shortly disbanded like all the previous bands.

It takes a series of coincidental happenings for most things to happen.  That shouldn't take away from how important Axl was to it all.  And I'm not just Axl loving here.  With his drive and passion, I believe he would have been a huge part of any band at that time.....regardless if some of the other members were in it or not.  My one concern would probably be Izzy.  All this talk of 1/5 is bull to me.  I mean I can see how "technically", yes...1/5.  But think outside the box here.  Axl meant so much more to their success than 1/5.  Then I would say Izzy is right behind him.  Axl and Izzy we're going to be successful at that time!  Didn't matter if Duff, Slash or any other member was apart of it.  Yes, those other members played key roles and helped with the success.  But I honestly believe Axl and Izzy would have found success without them.  I don't know if I can say that for the others.   

You've listened to the Roots of GN'R? Hollywood Rose sounded like any other hair band. Alright I suppose but nothing to write home about. They may have been signed and become semi-popular (akin to LA Guns or Faster Pussycat) but it would be presumptuous to believe they would have attained the heights GN'R crawled. Where is your Sweet Child intro going to come from? Who is going to write those punky bass lines? Where is that groove?

So were using works before GNR now to try and prove that Axl needed the other players?  Jesus man, you don't just wake up one day and are great.  Well, if you want to use Sweet Child as an example.....it was Axl who saw how good that was.  Slash was playing it as a joke and didn't want to do it. 

[damnthehaters]

It was pure coincidence why that particular line-up gelled anyhow as you had all these different bands and line-ups. Most of the members of the appetite band had played together in some formation or another: Hollywood Rose (Axl, Izzy); New Hollywood Rose (Axl, Slash, Adler); Road Crew (Slash, Adler - briefly Duff); Guns (Axl, Izzy, Duff). It took a series of coincidental happenings for all this to fall into place. Presumably if this was all some, masterplan by Axl, it would have fallen into shape far earlier. Reportedly also (and all the members say this) when it truly fell into place was when they bonded on the Hell Tour. There was no reason before playing the Hell Tour to assume that the appetite band would have shortly disbanded like all the previous bands.

It takes a series of coincidental happenings for most things to happen.  That shouldn't take away from how important Axl was to it all.  And I'm not just Axl loving here.  With his drive and passion, I believe he would have been a huge part of any band at that time.....regardless if some of the other members were in it or not.  My one concern would probably be Izzy.  All this talk of 1/5 is bull to me.  I mean I can see how "technically", yes...1/5.  But think outside the box here.  Axl meant so much more to their success than 1/5.  Then I would say Izzy is right behind him.  Axl and Izzy we're going to be successful at that time!  Didn't matter if Duff, Slash or any other member was apart of it.  Yes, those other members played key roles and helped with the success.  But I honestly believe Axl and Izzy would have found success without them.  I don't know if I can say that for the others.   

But it does matter that Duff, Slash, and Steven were there.  None of them (including Axl) were more successful than when they were together (or at least a critical mass of them were together).  That is evident in all of their post-1993 careers. 

Also, you really can't find it within you to see that Slash was going to be successful regardless?  He is widely regarding as one of the greatest rock n roll guitarists of all time.  Pretty sure he (like Axl) would've found success without Guns.

Of course they haven't been.  But just because they haven't been as successful after 1993 doesn't lead me to believe that they ALL need or needed each other to be successful.  Times are different now and things have obviously changed, you can't make that statement.  Even if Axl had formed a band of different members back in the day, had huge success, and then broke up.  The same thing would have happened....they wouldn't have had as much success afterwards.  At that time in their lives (young, energetic, passionate, driven, out to prove the world wrong, etc.), it's my belief that Axl and Izzy were going to be successful, regardless of who they were with.  And I'm not saying Slash or Duff wouldn't have been.  But Axl and Izzy were going to be great!  And in my mind, Slash, Duff, Steven (although doing their part) stepped into a gold mine being with Axl....and Izzy.  

Your argument is totally insulting to Slash, Duff and Steven. The five of them were the right members in the right band at the right time. Chemistry is everything for a band. These five had it. Axl an Izzy were in other bands before Guns. Guess what they didn't make it. They all needed each other. They all came from different backgrounds. They had different influences. But when you brought it all together it created something magical. They have yet to replicate the magic on there own.

You can hire the most talented musicians in the world to be part of your band. Doesn't necessarily mean they will have chemistry when you put them together.

Great, that's your opinion.  I totally just insulted Slash, Duff, and Steven.  I'll stand by my comment....I BELIEVE Axl would have made it big without those guys at that time. 

[damnthehaters]

It was pure coincidence why that particular line-up gelled anyhow as you had all these different bands and line-ups. Most of the members of the appetite band had played together in some formation or another: Hollywood Rose (Axl, Izzy); New Hollywood Rose (Axl, Slash, Adler); Road Crew (Slash, Adler - briefly Duff); Guns (Axl, Izzy, Duff). It took a series of coincidental happenings for all this to fall into place. Presumably if this was all some, masterplan by Axl, it would have fallen into shape far earlier. Reportedly also (and all the members say this) when it truly fell into place was when they bonded on the Hell Tour. There was no reason before playing the Hell Tour to assume that the appetite band would have shortly disbanded like all the previous bands.

It takes a series of coincidental happenings for most things to happen.  That shouldn't take away from how important Axl was to it all.  And I'm not just Axl loving here.  With his drive and passion, I believe he would have been a huge part of any band at that time.....regardless if some of the other members were in it or not.  My one concern would probably be Izzy.  All this talk of 1/5 is bull to me.  I mean I can see how "technically", yes...1/5.  But think outside the box here.  Axl meant so much more to their success than 1/5.  Then I would say Izzy is right behind him.  Axl and Izzy we're going to be successful at that time!  Didn't matter if Duff, Slash or any other member was apart of it.  Yes, those other members played key roles and helped with the success.  But I honestly believe Axl and Izzy would have found success without them.  I don't know if I can say that for the others.   

But it does matter that Duff, Slash, and Steven were there.  None of them (including Axl) were more successful than when they were together (or at least a critical mass of them were together).  That is evident in all of their post-1993 careers. 

Also, you really can't find it within you to see that Slash was going to be successful regardless?  He is widely regarding as one of the greatest rock n roll guitarists of all time.  Pretty sure he (like Axl) would've found success without Guns.

Of course they haven't been.  But just because they haven't been as successful after 1993 doesn't lead me to believe that they ALL need or needed each other to be successful.  Times are different now and things have obviously changed, you can't make that statement.  Even if Axl had formed a band of different members back in the day, had huge success, and then broke up.  The same thing would have happened....they wouldn't have had as much success afterwards.  At that time in their lives (young, energetic, passionate, driven, out to prove the world wrong, etc.), it's my belief that Axl and Izzy were going to be successful, regardless of who they were with.  And I'm not saying Slash or Duff wouldn't have been.  But Axl and Izzy were going to be great!  And in my mind, Slash, Duff, Steven (although doing their part) stepped into a gold mine being with Axl....and Izzy.  

Your argument is totally insulting to Slash, Duff and Steven. The five of them were the right members in the right band at the right time. Chemistry is everything for a band. These five had it. Axl an Izzy were in other bands before Guns. Guess what they didn't make it. They all needed each other. They all came from different backgrounds. They had different influences. But when you brought it all together it created something magical. They have yet to replicate the magic on there own.

You can hire the most talented musicians in the world to be part of your band. Doesn't necessarily mean they will have chemistry when you put them together.

Thank you.  I'm not sure why it's so hard to recognize this.  By minimizing the importance of the original lineup, are people somehow validating the current lineup or state of affairs?  The need to prove Axl was right (in keeping the name) because he was always the leader/creator and all others (except Izzy) were just lucky to be picked by Axl is just weird...and factually incorrect.

Your missing my point entirely.  I'm not validating the current anything.  My remarks are a simple point of view reacting to someone saying Axl had just as much importance as the others in the band.  I disagree!  I believe he had more.  In any kind of business, there is always SOMEONE who was a little more valuable.  And I initially shared an opinion as to why Axl may have felt the need to keep the name.  To some, those who start something should be able to keep the name if they want to.  But yet, you guys go on about how it's immoral.