Do we as Guns N Roses fans have it that bad?

[Spirit]

Axl certainly has one of the biggest names out there. Had he strategically marketed himself such as Slash started doing in the late 90s, I think he could have had an even bigger solo career than Slash. Naturally he didn't have to do that since he marched on under the GNR banner.

[Annie]

Axl certainly has one of the biggest names out there. Had he strategically marketed himself such as Slash started doing in the late 90s, I think he could have had an even bigger solo career than Slash. Naturally he didn't have to do that since he marched on under the GNR banner.

there was no need for Axl to market himself as a solo act. Slash chose to leave GNR and Axl was the last man standing. So Axl has every right to keep the GNR name and brand going.

[Spirit]

there was no need for Axl to market himself as a solo act.

Yes, that's what I said.

But if he had done it, he would have stood strong on his own because he has a big name in music.

[mrhays]

No. Guns N' Roses fans have only had it that good.
We have albums we can purchase in multiple formats, we have videos, DVDs, a Blu Ray, we've had tours that have happened all over the world, with various size shows, we've had residencies providing much opportunity to see our favorite band...
Comparing Guns to other bands for either praise or condemnation is understandable but undoubtedly and absolutely unfair. Doing that places unnecessary and unjust expectations on the band which can then only lead to false hope and disappointment. Comparisons and expectations stem from a sense of spoiled entitlement and to doubt their origins is to be in utter denial.
Thinking hard about how we as fans have it is also unneeded. The thinking is easy. Needing help with this is an indication of self-centered laziness.
We have had and still will have Guns N' Roses and everything that they are about.

[TheBaconman]

Axl certainly has one of the biggest names out there. Had he strategically marketed himself such as Slash started doing in the late 90s, I think he could have had an even bigger solo career than Slash. Naturally he didn't have to do that since he marched on under the GNR banner.

there was no need for Axl to market himself as a solo act. Slash chose to leave GNR and Axl was the last man standing. So Axl has every right to keep the GNR name and brand going.

Well really, Axl left the guns n roses partnership far before    Shower chose not to be a part of Axl new guns n roses agreement

I think Axl has had every right to use the name.  He owns it so of coarse he has had every right.   I also think he has been very successful in touring the past 10 years

[TheBaconman]

there was no need for Axl to market himself as a solo act.

Yes, that's what I said.

But if he had done it, he would have stood strong on his own because he has a big name in music.

If Axl was to market himself as a solo act it would of forced him to produce and release a lot more of his own music. 

Would he only perform his own original music? 

He has said in interviews that a Axl Rose solo album wouldn't sound like anything gnr. 

So one would think a Axl Rose solo concert wouldn't sound anything like a Guns N Roses concert.   

So then would he be as successful?   I am not too sure. I have never heard a Axl solo song and a Axl solo live performance

Would he be able to release albums of original material and tour supporting it?   I am not too sure.  He has only been able to release one studio album with the name gun n roses since h has had name ownership.    So should of expected more solo albums?   Mb it would of been easier to release solo albums.  Mb one of the song la would of become a radio hit and the albums would of sold  huge

The more I think about it.  As big of a star as Axl is.   His solo act would never of been as big as him at these of this guns n roses

[Spirit]

Oh, I never said he could have been as big as the Guns N Roses brand. But with the premise that he marketed himself just as much as Slash has done in the past 20 years, I think he would've wound up with the bigger name of the two of them. The music might have been different, but it would still be Axl writing and performing it, I trust it would have been good.

To be clear, I fully support that Axl went on with the Guns N Roses name, he would be foolish not to do that. This was just a hypothetical situation were Axl would have to go solo after 1996.

[JAEBALL]

Oh, I never said he could have been as big as the Guns N Roses brand. But with the premise that he marketed himself just as much as Slash has done in the past 20 years, I think he would've wound up with the bigger name of the two of them. The music might have been different, but it would still be Axl writing and performing it, I trust it would have been good.

To be clear, I fully support that Axl went on with the Guns N Roses name, he would be foolish not to do that. This was just a hypothetical situation were Axl would have to go solo after 1996.

It's tough to compare front man and guitar player.

Not only did Slash not have the GNR name to march out there.. he's also not the "voice" which is why he was always very present in the media pushing his brand.

[TheBaconman]

Oh, I never said he could have been as big as the Guns N Roses brand. But with the premise that he marketed himself just as much as Slash has done in the past 20 years, I think he would've wound up with the bigger name of the two of them. The music might have been different, but it would still be Axl writing and performing it, I trust it would have been good.

To be clear, I fully support that Axl went on with the Guns N Roses name, he would be foolish not to do that. This was just a hypothetical situation were Axl would have to go solo after 1996.

Slash has been in many band and released tons of music since he decided not to be in guns any more.   He was on countless late night interview shows and has given countless interviews.   He has released books and video games.   Has been touring straight for the past 20 years

All this has helped established his brand

Now Axl has toured lots in the past 10 years.   He also released one studio album.   

There is no way given his track record you could think he as a solo act would be a successful as slash

No with what we have seen.   

Axl would have totally had to change the way he does things and what he has produced the past little bit

[Bridge]

Now Axl has toured lots in the past 10 years.   He also released one studio album.   

There is no way given his track record you could think he as a solo act would be a successful as slash

No with what we have seen.   

Axl would have totally had to change the way he does things and what he has produced the past little bit

Beat me to it.  I was actually typing this very same opinion but you posted first.

I seriously doubt that Axl himself would've changed or done anything differently on the mere basis of a name difference.  If anything, Axl might even be more ridiculed than he is now if he presented himself as a solo act and didn't have the GNR name to duck behind.  There is no doubt that using the GNR name has helped Axl retain any remaining credibility over the years.  Either way, Slash definitely has more credibility in terms of output and consistency, regardless of whatever opinions exist on the actual music itself.

[AHUGEAxlFan]

Reading not confirmed? Sad

Yeah we have it hard rn

[ice cream sand pig]

No. Guns N' Roses fans have only had it that good.
We have albums we can purchase in multiple formats, we have videos, DVDs, a Blu Ray, we've had tours that have happened all over the world, with various size shows, we've had residencies providing much opportunity to see our favorite band...
Comparing Guns to other bands for either praise or condemnation is understandable but undoubtedly and absolutely unfair. Doing that places unnecessary and unjust expectations on the band which can then only lead to false hope and disappointment. Comparisons and expectations stem from a sense of spoiled entitlement and to doubt their origins is to be in utter denial.
Thinking hard about how we as fans have it is also unneeded. The thinking is easy. Needing help with this is an indication of self-centered laziness.
We have had and still will have Guns N' Roses and everything that they are about.

yeah i never understood how a fan can think they have it bad. imagine fans of a painter... he paints pictures, youre a fan of them. then he doesnt paint pictures for a while and some of his fans think they have it bad.

why feel like you have it bad over the hypothetical pictures he didnt paint or hasnt yet painted? why not just enjoy what he did paint? even if he tells you hes working on another one,  no need to feel like you have it bad because hes taking his time. when he comes around you appreciate him, and when hes not around, no need to feel like you have it bad.

plenty of other pictures to look at out there. its not like he has control over the art world and prevents you from looking at other pictures or makes you wait for his. i think any kind of "have it bad" wound can only be self inflicted.

as ive said before, self pity is a very curious thing. before anyone gets defensive about that statement, try and see for yourself what self pity is and be honest about whether or not it plays some role in this "i have it bad" thing. doesnt it have little to do with the painter himself and more to do with the mindset of the people that harbor those kinds of sentiments?

[D-GenerationX]

It's tough to compare front man and guitar player.

Not only did Slash not have the GNR name to march out there.. he's also not the "voice" which is why he was always very present in the media pushing his brand.

Agree 100% here.

Its tough as hell being the star of the show as the lead guitarist that does not sing.  Very tough spot.  Lot of work required.

And then you pretty much have to let another guy take center stage, even though yours is the name you are all are touring under.  

[D-GenerationX]

yeah i never understood how a fan can think they have it bad. imagine fans of a painter... he paints pictures, youre a fan of them. then he doesnt paint pictures for a while and some of his fans think they have it bad.

why feel like you have it bad over the hypothetical pictures he didnt paint or hasnt yet painted? why not just enjoy what he did paint? even if he tells you hes working on another one,  no need to feel like you have it bad because hes taking his time. when he comes around you appreciate him, and when hes not around, no need to feel like you have it bad.

plenty of other pictures to look at out there. its not like he has control over the art world and prevents you from looking at other pictures or makes you wait for his. i think any kind of "have it bad" wound can only be self inflicted.

This pretty well written and good points made.

Interesting about the "having it bad" part being self inflicted.  You're right, I think.  Its only us that tell ourselves it could be better.  And if we did not ask those questions, we would not then have to deal with all the hand wringing that follows.  Can be argued we are making our own problems.

Good post, rj.

[ice cream sand pig]

thank you 

[AHUGEAxlFan]

Axl certainly has one of the biggest names out there. Had he strategically marketed himself such as Slash started doing in the late 90s, I think he could have had an even bigger solo career than Slash. Naturally he didn't have to do that since he marched on under the GNR banner.

He could've gone solo and still be big. Using GNRS name was not a reason he used to continue his career, he just thought it was right because it's his band.

I think GNR from 1997-2015 has been bigger than slash. Slash could release as many albums as he wants, in my opinion they will never be as great as Chinese democracy or anything Axl has written.

[AHUGEAxlFan]

Think about it.

What's easier to replace, the vocals or lead guitar, even buckethead was replaceable. There is 15 year old kids who can perfectly play those songs, it's not hard. Very little actually sound like Axl though.

[D-GenerationX]

Retaining the name opens a lot of doors for Axl.

It's why he was smart to keep it, and the others are morons for signing it away.  I will NEVER understand that.

[D-GenerationX]

Think about it.

What's easier to replace, the vocals or lead guitar, even buckethead was replaceable. There is 15 year old kids who can perfectly play those songs, it's not hard. Very little actually sound like Axl though.

Oh yeah.  Replacing the singer is a bitch.

Axl has always had the upper hand in that sense.  It can be GNR without Slash, but can't ever be GNR with no Axl.

[ice cream sand pig]

even if you got a guy that sounded like him... say you threw juan the beast up there. even then, you could never come close to his personality or stage presence. id say theres no one out there quite like axl. hes really a special dude in that sense. not to mention his song crafting prowess is out of this world.

 i would like to see what kind of music he would write not for gnr, but for something else someday. i really hope something like that eventually comes along. something he could go out and do without all the expectations and other strings attached.

you could argue that guns became his solo act anyway, but i think theres something to the pov that his solo stuff would be a lot different, at least according to himself. id also love to see him do some light hearted song about marijuana with willy nelson or something. something where he gets to show off his sense of humor a little more.