Axl Should Drop The Name Guns n Roses

[November_rain]

Axl Rose was one of the founders of the band so why can´t he keep the name? He´s the only one who hasn´t left the boat so he´s the captain with all the rights.

[Axl-rocks]

I fail to understand why Axl should have to the change the name because of the actions of other people. Other people chose to leave - Axl stuck with it, he keeps the name.

The combined actions of those other people is what made that band. Axl is not the band, he's merely one piece of the puzzle.

yeah but the other people left leaving Axl the only member of guns n roses in the band besides dIzzy and Axl replaced the members that left, simple as that, he has every right to still have the name.

I'm not disputing the fact that he has the legal right to use the name. He demanded it and he got it. Fine. However, my feeling is that morally I disagree with it. The other band members left, of course they did. The alternative was to sit in obscurity for over a decade and be a part of something they had no control over...... legally and creatively. The fact that band members can just be replaced proves keeping the name was a businnes decision, not an emotional one.

considering Axl has been apart of Guns n Roses from the very beginning, maybe keeping the name is an emotional one as it's apart of him and has been for the last say 21 years. That's like amost half his life, so I think it means alot to him

And what did you want Axl to do when Slash and co left, just say well this is it better not do anything cos everyone has left me-yeah right.

Edited January 19, 2006 by Axl-rocks

[ChineseDictatorship]

YES he should drop it. He should just go by "Axl Rose". Mick Jagger didn't use Rolling Stones on his solo efforts, and Ozzy Osbourne didn't use Black Sabbath on his.

Let's face it, this is an Axl Rose solo project. Whether you like it or not, that's what it is. It's a group of musicians hired to play Axl's music, point blank. It's not a band, it's Axl Rose and hired musicians, and there's nothing wrong with that. But just don't tarnish the name of GNR with it.

As much as I hate to admit it, it's probably true. I find it hard to imagine anyone other than Axl with much creative input in the band. Of course, I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong.

[Guest Matt13]

so you mean that you should not do what you think is fun just do what every body else does and just make something you can get alot of cash from and ripping stupid kids mony off

Axl uses just the GN'R name so his album can sell more

Slash Duff and Izzy wanted to do something that was just fun but axl wanted to make something that could be a number 1 hit and get played on MTV and thay would have lasted alot longer if Axl's ego wasn't so fucking big and do songs like November Rain (even if I love the song but thay didn't need it as a band)

If you start saying more shit about Axl you are Axl's butt liker

When you learn how to compose a sentence... or even better... spell, get back to us. Until then, if you can't substantiate your remarks with examples, educated guesses and/or intelligent debate, I suggest you keep your mouth shut. You sound like a redundant retard that repeats what every other clown that can't spell speaks.

Have a nice day.

[droezle]

so you mean that you should not do what you think is fun just do what every body else does and just make something you can get alot of cash from and ripping stupid kids mony off

Axl uses just the GN'R name so his album can sell more

Slash Duff and Izzy wanted to do something that was just fun but axl wanted to make something that could be a number 1 hit and get played on MTV and thay would have lasted alot longer if Axl's ego wasn't so fucking big and do songs like November Rain (even if I love the song but thay didn't need it as a band)

If you start saying more shit about Axl you are Axl's butt liker

-GET IN THE RING MOTHERFUCKER

-If Axl wanted to be a sell out he already had released 4 albums.

-Axl made some different music but it was never been played on MTV. Oh my god is the name of that song.

November rain already exists since 1987-1988. Axl was not the only 1 with a big ego. The whole band was a big ego.

-And if you call a fan who defends his icon - Axl- a butt liker ,go ahead i don't care. We all have our own oppinions but we don't need a retarded moron insulting the person that we are talking about.

Axl is Guns N' Roses and he have all the rights to use that name.

[Kickingthehabit]

No one is going to accept this band as Guns N' Roses..

Save for, of course.. this message board

And all those people who went to see them on the 2002 tour... Respected members of the music press/media like Kurt Loader...

In that interview with Slash not long ago (the whole its coming in March one) - Slash said he went to check out "my band" in Vegas in 2002 - so if Slash still recognises it as his band - surely it's still Gn'R?

The mere fact that it was promoted as the 'Triumphant Return of Guns N' Roses' obviously manipulated the general public into believing, it was, in fact.. the return of Guns N' Roses.

I remember seeing pictures with arenas half empty.. and the fact that an official at Clear Channel publicly stated that "this Guns N' Roses" will not be a "stadium band", only proves how ridiculous your comments are.

Remember the real band? They played to stadiums of 30,000..

Axl averaged around 7,000 a gig in 2002.. in arenas that could hold 18,000

I also think it's hilarious how you attempt to prove that this circus is somehow Guns N' Roses because Slash referred to it as, 'his band'..

Obviously, you missed the sarcasm.

And Loder, of all people, is known for his hard-on when it comes to Axl Rose..

Watch the interviews,.. he's a school girl

-Kickingthehabit

Edited January 19, 2006 by Kickingthehabit

[Wildrose]

No fuckin way.

[Guest JohnUlmer]

No fuckin way.

Two things we agree on.

[Garden Of Eden]

I could care less what the name is. Even if he changed it, it would just be made into something it doesn't have to be. And for what? There is no point.

[Rick]

The mere fact that it was promoted as the 'Triumphant Return of Guns N' Roses' obviously manipulated the general public into believing, it was, in fact.. the return of Guns N' Roses.

Yes - they did. It was the return of Guns n' Roses, why wouldn't they?

I remember seeing pictures with arenas half empty.. and the fact that an official at Clear Channel publicly stated that "this Guns N' Roses" will not be a "stadium band", only proves how ridiculous your comments are.

Remember the real band? They played to stadiums of 30,000..

Axl averaged around 7,000 a gig in 2002.. in arenas that could hold 18,000

Gn'R hadn't released an album for nearly a decade. It came out of nowhere - i think the attendance was pretty good considering the lack of publicity and as i said - the lack of music from the band. We followed band between TSI and 2001 - many other people didn't. They moved on from Gn'R.

Obviously, you missed the sarcasm.

Obviously i did

And Loder, of all people, is known for his hard-on when it comes to Axl Rose..

Watch the interviews,.. he's a school girl

He's a fan of Axl Rose, where's the problem with that?

R.

[*Dreamer*]

complaining about it isnt going to change the fact that he owns the rights to the name. A name is just a name (though it's a preety cool name ) Doesnt matter to me what he calls his band as long as CD comes out

[jvitale2004]

In my opinion Axl should keep the name....all the other members left and Axl alone decided to man the ship that is known as Guns N Roses. Sure, it's not the original gnr anymore, but that wasn't Axl's choice.. why should he give up the name he played a huge part in making historic. He stuck it out on his own and hired musicians to help him creat Chinese Democracy, he should be entitled to present Chinese Democracy under the name Guns N Roses if he wishes.

Although, I would have no problem with him releasing it under another name if he chose to drop the gnr name out of respect for the past members..

Basically, I think Axl should do whatever the hell he wants...

[Patience 4 Axl]

I fail to understand why Axl should have to the change the name because of the actions of other people. Other people chose to leave - Axl stuck with it, he keeps the name.

The combined actions of those other people is what made that band. Axl is not the band, he's merely one piece of the puzzle.

yeah but the other people left leaving Axl the only member of guns n roses in the band besides dIzzy and Axl replaced the members that left, simple as that, he has every right to still have the name.

I'm not disputing the fact that he has the legal right to use the name. He demanded it and he got it. Fine. However, my feeling is that morally I disagree with it. The other band members left, of course they did. The alternative was to sit in obscurity for over a decade and be a part of something they had no control over...... legally and creatively. The fact that band members can just be replaced proves keeping the name was a businnes decision, not an emotional one.

considering Axl has been apart of Guns n Roses from the very beginning, maybe keeping the name is an emotional one as it's apart of him and has been for the last say 21 years. That's like amost half his life, so I think it means alot to him

And what did you want Axl to do when Slash and co left, just say well this is it better not do anything cos everyone has left me-yeah right.

Oh please. If the name was such a personal thing for him, he would not have allowed it to become nothing more than a punchline. Read any other music message boards, read articles on the band, listen to other artists comments, and you will see the the name no longer garners the respect that it once deserved. If it had been put to rest when the last original members left, the members that helped put the name at the top where it belonged, the members whose contributions helped establish the band as one of the best in the world, it would still be held in high esteem today.

[Axl-rocks]

I fail to understand why Axl should have to the change the name because of the actions of other people. Other people chose to leave - Axl stuck with it, he keeps the name.

The combined actions of those other people is what made that band. Axl is not the band, he's merely one piece of the puzzle.

yeah but the other people left leaving Axl the only member of guns n roses in the band besides dIzzy and Axl replaced the members that left, simple as that, he has every right to still have the name.

I'm not disputing the fact that he has the legal right to use the name. He demanded it and he got it. Fine. However, my feeling is that morally I disagree with it. The other band members left, of course they did. The alternative was to sit in obscurity for over a decade and be a part of something they had no control over...... legally and creatively. The fact that band members can just be replaced proves keeping the name was a businnes decision, not an emotional one.

considering Axl has been apart of Guns n Roses from the very beginning, maybe keeping the name is an emotional one as it's apart of him and has been for the last say 21 years. That's like amost half his life, so I think it means alot to him

And what did you want Axl to do when Slash and co left, just say well this is it better not do anything cos everyone has left me-yeah right.

Oh please. If the name was such a personal thing for him, he would not have allowed it to become nothing more than a punchline. Read any other music message boards, read articles on the band, listen to other artists comments, and you will see the the name no longer garners the respect that it once deserved. If it had been put to rest when the last original members left, the members that helped put the name at the top where it belonged, the members whose contributions helped establish the band as one of the best in the world, it would still be held in high esteem today.

And Axl is making the guns n roses name live on by making an album that has taken 10 years +,to me it doesn't get anymore personal to Axl than that,and I don't have to read music message boards, or articles or other artist comments to understand it

Edited January 20, 2006 by Axl-rocks

[jvitale2004]

I think the name guns n roses is still held in a high regard... fuck you have every festival wanting any incarnation of guns n roses to be one of the headliners. the name guns n roses helped sell an average of 9,000 tickets a venue in about 12-15 states and helped sell out 3 or 4 of those shows with no video, radio, or television promotion. The band literally dissapeared for 10 years and still sold pretty good when the new incarnation toured.

A lot of angst is built up toward the gnr name though.. many people wanted to see gnr continue making music and rather than admit they are dissapointed with what happened with the band they might make fun of Axl, insult him, or say he will never make any music again that will live up to the old gnr. A lot of people in the music business are jealous of Axl too, I mean look at Axl.. have you ever seen anyone more morally intact as far as releasing music is concerned?? Axl, could have released five albums in a row now with mediocre music on them and each would have sold millions, but Axl has refused to do it and has continued to work on his potential masterpiece. A lot of people in music are jealous of that because they know deep inside they are in the industry for money, and they would release shit album after shit album if they had too... but Axl won't, and Axl gets to do what he wants.. name one other artist who has as much control over their material as Axl has over his.....

The name Guns N Roses is still quite powerful my friends... people can hate on Axl all they want, sure on a personal level he may be an asshole, but when it comes to the music side of things... Mr. Rose's musical integrity is unmatched, I find it amazing that he doesn't get more praise, he is one of the few in the business who has never sacrificed his musical integrity to sell albums.

[Stranger]

If Axl wanted to drop the name, he would have done it a long time ago. But he hasn't, so get over it.

[The Volitan]

Axl for me is the best frontman ever, we all know he owns guns n roses, but he isn't guns n roses, guns n roses were a band of great musicians and full of songwriting talent, this thread has been done before but i'd like to do it my way by making a few points, so here goes;

Dropping the name guns n roses would take a whole lotta pressure off of axl, people would give his new stuff a lot more respect seeing as he wouldn't have as much to live up to, the new band aren't guns n roses for me but just axl and a bunch of musicians, he wouldn't have to compete with the old g n r stuff seeing as he would've moved on by dropping the name & he'd have a whole new lease of life, axl could do things his own way, maybe like he mentioned in the rolling stone mag interview a new different way...

...i don't think his voice is anywhere near as good as it used to be as it was so unique, but once again dropping the name would let axl sing in peace with his new voice, instead of struggling like hell to re-create the screams etc.

-This is just my point of view, but i feel it makes a lot of sense, discuss...

I agree, but there's a little more to it than that to. Axl is just using the GnR name and cheapening any experiences he had, with guys he called his "brothers." Guns N' Roses= The music of Axl, Izzy, Steven, Slash, Duff and maybe Adler. The new lineup hjas nothing to do with the Guns attitude, music and experience. Axl sees Guns as a brand name, not as a band of friends/brothers out to conquer the world of music.

[Patience 4 Axl]

Being named "The Most Freaky-Deaky Looking Band" by Rolling Stone Magazine in 2001 is not what I would call held in high regard.

And of course festivals still come calling. Festival organizers aren't picky who they book. They are trying to fill seats. It's just about business. Unfortunately the name wasn't enough for the fans in the U.S. back in '02. I believe if it was the original band touring, even without an album, the name would have been more than enough to fill half empty arenas.

[jvitale2004]

Well, first of all an arena can only be 3/4 full, if it is a 18,000 seat venue.. in actuality only 14,000 seats are sold... on that 2002 tour Axl managed to sell out 3-4 cities and averaged about 9,000-10,000 tickets overall if I am correct.

I do agree though, if it was a reunion tour.. then yes they probably would have sold out every show.

But, Axl doesn't care about the money, he does what he wants and he has his own way he goes about things. He compromised to no one and ultimately that is what is great about Axl Roses... but it also lead to the self destruction of original gnr as well....

[Patience 4 Axl]

You know, I just find it interesting that people equate not releasing a new album in 13 years as evidence of his unwillingness to sell out because of his musical integrity. How about the other factors involved, such as the insider at Geffen who confirmed Axl would not be in the studio for months and months at a time, or another person involved who heard some of the tracks being worked on saying some were amazing, while others were just plain crap.

I agree that money does not seem to be a major factor for him at the moment. Even after funding for the album stopped, he has continued to forge ahead, still at his own pace, with this project. Hell, in the end, we're all rooting for him. Even Slash is.

[gnrfanxxx]

No way! guns n roses is a pretty good band name. everyone knows them by guns and roses poeple wont know who they are if they change there name! but if for some reason they did change there name they should go back to hollywood rose :chef: