Why Do People Have A Go At Axl Rose Being The Only Original Member?

[Alex]

Sorry for the long title but its true. Whenever people bring up the current lineup of Guns N Roses they always have a go saying 'Its not right, its only Axl' Axl Rose seems to be singled out when this type of conversation comes up, but there are other bands like Guns N Roses.

Motorhead- Yes Lemmy is the only original member of Motorhead still in the band, yet people don't have a go at him for it.

Evanescence Amy Lee seems to have done what Axl Rose was doing in the 90s firing members and annoying others to the point of them leaving, yet she still is seen in a good light and no one has a go at her for it.

So why does Axl Rose get a hard time when there are others who do it, yes he can be a dick I get that but have a go at him for being a dick instead of being the only original member of a band that had only two original members (Axl and Izzy Stradlin) when they released Appetite For Destruction.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I think its due to the other members of Guns N Roses (Slash in particular) being much more iconic than the members of the other bands you mentioned, and the manner at which they left the band.

Axl is well known for being power-mad and the ugly contract squabbles which led to Slash leaving the band are well documented, and I don't need to go into those here. Izzy and Steven Adler leaving were for different reasons though.

I think that Axl's G'N'R taking so long to release Chinese Democracy basically pissed alot of people off, it was getting beyond a joke and I think thats where alot of the negative feeling towards him comes from. Plus, the way he would come out so late for gigs, end shows early etc just ended up casting him in a negative light. People just got sick of Axl Rose and his attitude, and when the new material was released just hated the fact that the other members were not involved.

As for Motorhead, the band has always been just about Lemmy, he is the complete figurehead, while in Guns it wasnt just Axl who was the star. Slash was just as important factor as Axl, and when they play without him now, it just isnt the same.

Thats my thoughts anyway

 

[mrbrownstone]

Yeah I get what you a saying but I disagree.

The comparisons you make to the other bands are really unfounded; Motorhead is and always will be solely about Lemmy he could play with any combination of guitarists and drummers and it would make no difference so long as Lemmy is still there.

GNR on the other hand is different, it was more about the collective. Axl certainly wasn't the sole star of the band and he possibly wasn't even the biggest star in the band, an honour that could debatably go to Slash. So now when people see him playing with a bunch of other musicians instead of the original guys it doesn't seem right as without Slash, Duff, Izzy and Steve/Matt it isn't really Guns.

I have no problem with him still making music personally but to do it under the GNR name is ridiculous call it Axl Rose or W.A.R (William Axl Rose) but to do it under the GNR name is wrong, what gives him the right to use that name? Velvet Revolver have more right to call them selves Guns, hell Duff, Slash, Izzy and Steve's solo projects have equal right to call themselves GNR.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

No one says anything about Dani Filth being the only original member of Cradle of Filth, a decade and a half after they first started.

Then again Dani Filth doesn't take 2 hour naps 30 minutes before he's supposed to go on stage with strict instructions not to wake him. Dani Filth doesn't do maybe 3 songs and then fuck off when he feels he's had enough, and it doesn't take Dani Filth 12 years to release a follow up album.

Most people i know don't hate Axl Rose for being the only original member of GnR. They hate him for being him.

 

[DirtyJosé]

I think its due to the other members of Guns N Roses (Slash in particular) being much more iconic than the members of the other bands you mentioned, and the manner at which they left the band.

As for Motorhead, the band has always been just about Lemmy, he is the complete figurehead, while in Guns it wasnt just Axl who was the star. Slash was just as important factor as Axl, and when they play without him now, it just isnt the same.

This is really about it. Any bands mentioned in the OP have the same thing in common: ONE iconic member. Gn'R had two, beyond any doubt. Many casual fans even confuse the two. Gn'R without Slash is not Gn'R, just as much as Gn'R without Axl Rose is not Gn'R (it's Velvet Revolver).

 

[Alex]

On A Side Note I'd Like To Add Josh Homme from QOTSA.


As you guys have mentioned Guns N Roses was more of a collective rather than one stand out person and also because people (like some of my friends) find Slash awesome so without him they feel annoyed that Axl's still going on under the GNR banner.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

On A Side Note I'd Like To Add Josh Homme from QOTSA.


As you guys have mentioned Guns N Roses was more of a collective rather than one stand out person and also because people (like some of my friends) find Slash awesome so without him they feel annoyed that Axl's still going on under the GNR banner.

Sounds like Homme has the same opinion as alot of the fans then. He seems a pretty cool guy.

I think Slash was just too much of an iconic figure to replace, and there is just a gaping hole whenever Axl plays and Slash isnt alongside him on stage. It just doesnt feel or look the same, and as music is so important to so many people, Guns without Slash just doesnt connect with them in the same way.

An original line-up reunion tour would be literally the biggest thing ever

 

[UltimateHitman]

There's not much else to say, I think everybody hit the nail on the head. They were a hit because of the collective, and Slash's 'fro and top hat were just as notable as Axl's straight mop and bandanna.

That being said, though, I see the OP's point. Many bands go through line-up changes. Hell, Black Sabbath went through other members, as well as Priest and Maiden, and they were still called Sabbath, Priest, and Maiden. It's just the nature of the game sometimes. Sometimes people get along, sometimes not. I don't think people should give Axl hell for using the name Guns and Roses, though.

Here's the original line-up when the band was formed (taken from Wki): "The group was formed in early 1985 by Hollywood Rose members Axl Rose (vocals) Izzy Stradlin (rhythm guitar), L.A. Guns members Tracii Guns (lead guitar), Ole Beich (bass) and Rob Gardner (drums)."

So technically, these would be the guys that would have had the right to the GNR moniker. But since all the originals besides Axl didn't leave at the same time, or collectively kick him out, use of the name logically falls in his lap. The only two original guys left were Axl and Izzy when they hit popularity. Izzy, the only other guy that had the rights to the name, left the group. He didn't get the other guys together to push Axl out of GNR, he left GNR. So I don't see why people would be so up in arms about Axl using the name.

 

[El Rev sXe]

I think Alex we already had this discussion, anyway, you just need to compare GnR from "appetite for destruction" and "chinese democracy", it is a completely different sound/band. Where is the blues? Nowhere.
Now compare for example Motorheäd's "overkill" or "ace of spades" with "the world is yours" or "kiss of death" and you will listen the same sound/style after 30 years.

Like I said before, GnR was a collective effort, every member helped to define GnR sound. It wasn't only Slash, it also helped Izzy alot for example. "Dust n bones", "14 years" were written by him. The members brought this "in your face" bluesy rock while Axl was the guy who wanted to do it more complex, more progressive. That's why without Slash, Izzy etc.. GnR loses alot of their sound. While "Madagascar" for example is an excellent song it doesn't have that bluesy feeling/hard rock sound that defined GnR.

Lemmy is Motorheäd, Dave Mustaine is Megadeth, GnR is Axl, Izzy, Slash, Dizzy, Duff Matt etc..