You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#101 Re: Dust N' Bones & Cyborg Slunks » Sorum Says Velvet Revolver Are Eyeing Potential New Singer » 706 weeks ago
GIVE UP ALREADY VR NO ONE GIVES A FUCK
#102 Re: Guns N' Roses » Trunk Interviews RRHOF President » 706 weeks ago
You know, if Axl does play with them and they play as GNR, for the new guys it would kinda be like someone watching their spouse fuck their ex-spouse right in front of them and right as they cum, turning to and going "Lube up, you're next."
#103 Re: Guns N' Roses » December 16, Key Arena- Seattle, WA » 706 weeks ago
And Axl-less Gn'R would've likley been as successful as say Velvet Revolver
. Maybe some people would've said no thanks the way they did with CD but fact is public opinion is people like Slash. And they recruited Sott Weiland who had a built in fanbase and the name itself would've gained a few sales. This band was basically shoevd down people's throats as Gusn N' Roses without Axl/ with Scott by radio dj's everywhere. It woudl've been met with the same resitnece though that 'You can't have Gn'r without Slash" and "you can't have Gn'R without Axl" type stuff.
I actually think had Axl dropped the Gn'R name he may have been more successful. Maybe not touring wise but album sales wise maybe. yes there were the pucrhases that were made solely on the name Guns N' Roses but I think an Axl Rose record would've been met more favorably from the public thus leading to more sales maybe and less of a perception that "it sucks because there's no Slash"
Who knows. Alternate universes. fun to think about but so hard to say.
I think it would have been less successful than VR, to be honest. VR was billed as a supergroup of GNR and STP. The band would have just been billed as GNR. And imagine someone like Scott fronting GNR.... 
#104 Re: Guns N' Roses » Trunk Interviews RRHOF President » 706 weeks ago
I hear ya and no I've not suggested he shouldn't do it to spare the new band. I just realize it's a tight spot and yeah nobody put him in this pot but himself so.....
I dont' see a performance with the old guys helping his cause with the new band though. It's just gonna make those who already wont' accept the new band as Guns even more stuborn and it's gonna cause some who support the new band to just say fuck it just reunite.
I'm one of those. If there is nothing new planned but touring I do say fuck it and reunite. IF they plan on releasing some new stuff then ok do it but either shit or get off the pot(reunite)
I agree with everything here. Playing with the old band, for even one night, will not do anything good for his current lineup.
Call me crazy, but I would kind of like to hear the other 2 albums worth of material Axl currently has. I would also like to hear the new band sit down and write together, as they seem to have good chemistry.
#105 Re: Guns N' Roses » Trunk Interviews RRHOF President » 706 weeks ago
Slash just posted this
For the record, I didn't RSVP, or in any way commit to attending the RRHF. I don't appreciate people putting words in my mouth. Iii|; )'
I updated my original post.
But come on... Slash is going. With all the other bullshit events he does there's no way he will miss this.
#106 Re: Guns N' Roses » Trunk Interviews RRHOF President » 706 weeks ago
What choice?
There's only ONE choice. He HAS to perform with them.
I'm telling you. Anything less than that is gonna look HORRIBLE, and the media is gonna run WILD with it.
For the first time in a LONG time, Axl Rose has to give the people what they want to make this work.
If they perform, the only thing that will work is a set of songs performed solely from AFD/Lies by the original 5, and then do a UYI tribute with Matt & Dizzy out there.
The new band thing just isn't gonna work, unless they're saved over for some sort of "show ending" big collaboration deal and some of them jam on stage.
And then he performs with Slash again and everyone sees it as water under the bridge and everything is all fine and dandy in GNR land. They can now go tour and write more music together!
Fuck the current lineup, they are history at that point in the public's eye.
On a serious note: Fuck the RRHOF for doing this. They did it for the money. They have snubbed bands that deserve to get in for years, but GNR get in first ballot because of this. (not saying they don't deserve it, they do)
#107 Re: Dust N' Bones & Cyborg Slunks » Libertad vs. Chinese Democracy, Round III » 706 weeks ago
Anyone who votes off SOD should be banned. 
Amazing lyrics on that song, even if they downgraded the music on the album version.
#108 Guns N' Roses » Trunk Interviews RRHOF President » 706 weeks ago
- Saikin
- Replies: 61
Interview just happened today. I wasn't able to listen to it, but Trunk posted some GNR details on Twitter. If anyone did listen feel free to add.
Someone on twitter asked him if he knows if Axl will show up:
"(president) said all have RSVP'd that they will show but still too song to tell"- FALSE
Someone asked if GNR should have gotten in:
"No. Not over others ignored"
General comments:
"Also he confirmed that for GNR, Appetite guys as well as Sorum and Dizzy are inducted. If both Axl and Slash show is anyone's guess, too soon"
-----------------------------------
The two most important parts are that they confirmed exactly who is getting inducted as well as the fact that apparently all of them have said they would attend.
It would be interesting to see exactly how they would work out inducting all of them if they chose to play together. Or if they chose to play separate. I could see current GNR playing with Axl and then the old lineup playing with a different singer.
If Axl has plans for his current lineup, performing with the old lineup probably isn't the best idea. But if he isn't planning on continuing this lineup, then he definitely should play with them. If he doesn't perform with them, the media will of course trash him and paint him to be a gigantic asshole, regardless of his reasoning.
I don't envy him and the choice he has to make.
#109 Re: Guns N' Roses » December 16, Key Arena- Seattle, WA » 706 weeks ago
Axlin08 wrote:THE ONLY REASON A NEW GUNS N' ROSES EXISTS IS BECAUSE OF AXL.
Well to be realistic the only reason a new Guns N' Roses exists is because Axl kept the name. I think we'd all still be here if he called it the Axl Rose band. I mean it's not like Axl "saved" Guns N' Roses. He simply kept the name. Would this band be any less interesting without the name? Not to me. Then again if Slash and Duff took the name and Axl went solo who would we all be following? Guns N' Roses? Would this website exist with this name or would we all be posting on a "Rose coloured Shades" website?
Axlin08 wrote:But without a new album, and the lack of a real future of the current band, the more integration of the old band members the better.
Agreed. To be honest though without a reunion I think it's gonna be an extremely long time before anything new is released. The fact Axl hasn't mentioned a damn thing about it on this tour speaks volumes. Most artists like to talk about their future plans when it comes to music. the fact Axl isn't says to me nothing is coming any time soon.
that's why I think "Shit or get off the pot(reunite)"
I have always thought that if Slash had decided to take the GNR name and reform the band with all new members it would be even less accepted than Axl doing it.
Why?
Axl is the fucking voice of GNR. And that voice is not easy to duplicate. Look at who Slash has singing GNR songs now. Myles sounds NOTHING like Axl and on songs like Civil War- he sounds fucking terrible. Not only is Axl the voice, he's the attitude as well. Not many singers have his attitude and energy on stage. That's the way I always imagined another scenario playing out.
If it was the Axl Rose Solo Project, I know I would still follow it. His voice is unique, his lyrics are great, and he has a fuck ton of stage presence.
Do you think an Axl solo project would have done better than CD? I could see it going either way. It wouldn't have had the stigma of "it's not GNR without SLASH!"
#110 Re: Guns N' Roses » December 16, Key Arena- Seattle, WA » 707 weeks ago
Saikin wrote:Everything you just said proved my point. I said that CD added to the GNR legacy. I didn't qualify that and say whether it was good or bad.
Everything you said helped to prove that CD did add to the GNR legacy. (Good or bad doesn't matter) Without CD, people wouldn't be talking about GNR. The huge wait kept GNR/Axl in the spotlight. It is the butt of a lot of jokes. But with all the hype surrounding it there was no way it could live up. What we got is a perfectly good rock record (which there are too few of these days).
With everyone singing along to CD songs in concert, I do think those guys deserve some credit given to them.
There's a point in time where people have to move on and accept that this is how GNR is right now. I kind of feel that it would be a slap in the face to the guys in the band now to reunite with the old members. These guys seem to finally be getting some legitimacy to their lineup and a reunion would destroy that.
If GNR reunited, even for one night, people would want more, and people would turn away from this lineup even more. I say don't do it unless you're actually going to get back together.
Holy shit dude are you for real? Nobody would be talking about Guns N' Roses if it weren't for CD? The huge wait kept AXL in the spotlight not his band of interchangeable hired hands.
Yes I am for real. Axl is GNR now (in its current form). There is a point where people need to accept that and move the fuck on or give up.
Yes, it kept Axl in the spotlight. And whenever people discuss Axl, GNR is also mentioned.
You are usually a good poster, but to disagree with this is fucking ludicrous. CD, and the gigantic wait and clusterfuck surrounding it, kept people talking about Axl and GNR. If GNR had just went away and not done anything, no one would have talked about them until reunion rumors started. So yes, CD contributed to the GNR legacy (good or bad).
