Another anti-Axl article

[acompleteunknown]

I feel it's ironic that the writer of this article bashes the media distortion of a topic, all the while, he's providing his own skewed information in order to prove his point.

http://media.www.daily49er.com/media/storage/paper1042/news/2007/03/19/Opinion/leadSinger.Syndrome.Exemplified.In.90s.Rock.Band-2779182.shtml

[oldgunsfan]

the problem with the article is he starts off w/ Lead Singer Syndrome; but than writes the rest of the article complaining about Axl.  Sure there are inaccuracies with the GnR history, but the bigger problem is he mentions tons of "other Bands" but only uses Axl as a example.

[25]

The problem with the article is that it's an opinion column in a college rag. And it's written by a junior film major - At Cal State. I guess he disagrees with the auteur theory.

[2NaFish]

its an ineptly written piece of shit. it takes half a dozen dumb ass assumption then presents them as fact without considering the true ramifications.

cheap shoddy journalism.

[GeraldFord]

I take it that was a piece by an under-grad?

[ChrisPittman]

He has a point, in that the band isnt what it used to be without the other members of the band, but he has to realise that hes just jumping on the bandwagon. Everyone whos critical of Axl says things like this, and miss the big picture, such that his voice is as strong as ever the the members he has brought in are extremely technically sufficent.

[acompleteunknown]

It's true the lead singer's voice is the driving force of a band and gives that band its signature sound. but bands like AC/DC, Genesis, and Van halen have changed lead singers, kept the name, and still have found critical and popular success without deminishing the soul of a band. 

So if the lead singer remains in the band, then why can't it continue on?  Obviously, this isn't going to be the same band.  Just as Van Hagar wasn't the same thing as Van halen.  But they still managed to make some good tunes.

I read when UYI was being recorded that Axl was talking about the making of a debut album versus the making of a second album.  The first album is filled with your life experiences up until that point (20 years or so) and the second album is supposed to have the same depth but with only 3 or 4 years of experiences.  That makes it harder to live up to expectations.  I'm sure he's looking at this new band with the same type of expectations he had for the old one, not purposely waiting to get more experiences to include, but when something happens, I'm sure he's trying in incorporate the events into the process.

[2NaFish]

He has a point, in that the band isnt what it used to be without the other members of the band, but he has to realise that hes just jumping on the bandwagon. Everyone whos critical of Axl says things like this, and miss the big picture, such that his voice is as strong as ever the the members he has brought in are extremely technically sufficent.

not really gonna walk away with a pulitzer for writing articles on how there have been lots of member changes in gn'r.

its a big pile of wank. a turgid, inept pile of wank at that, nothing more than an excuse to create friction and negativity out of meaningless pieces of trivia, all so he can draw the conclusion that nobody gives a fuck, and yet people care enough to write articles every day of the week about axl.

Obviously axl/gn'r are not perfect. Which is why i find it all the more incredible that dipshit journos keep turning out this same old shit over and over again. If they're so laughable and low on credibility why cant they do a half-decent job of actually showing us this. Its not tough. Yet they wank themselves off onto their computer screens and leave us to decipher their inane ramblings.

pish.

[Jim Bob]

worst article ever.  this belongs in the trash 

[Continental Drift]

The main problem with the article is that the media built Slash and Duff up as rock stars as well (Izzy less so b/c he was so understated). It wasn't just Axl. Most people were pretty horrified when Slash and finally Duff left in the mid/late 90s. The press wasn't like "Whatever. It's Axl's band anyway." Not at all.

At the end of the day the old band fell apart b/c of fiercely different views about artistic direction. Each camp saw the other's POV as artistic suicide. Perhaps that's ego... but I think it had a lot more to do with survival instincts (on both side's parts) more than anything.

[ppbebe]

Axl must realize that Guns N' Roses was a band, not a one-man show.

Or rather you must go see the band to realize that Guns N' Roses is a band, not a one-man show.

A band needs to function as a band, with respect and contributions from each member. Any band that fails to recognize that is not a band at all, but just pure ego and greed.

on about why there should be no reunion and why GNR now kickass as a band?

So if and when "Chinese Democracy" comes out, will anyone even care?

sure. you obviously will.

[AxlNow]

  The music is made for the fans. Not for the fucking critics who want to trash every artist they come across. You guys decide what is good. Not them.

[russtcb]

Axl must realize that Guns N' Roses was a band, not a one-man show.

Or rather you must go see the band to realize that Guns N' Roses is a band, not a one-man show.

A band needs to function as a band, with respect and contributions from each member. Any band that fails to recognize that is not a band at all, but just pure ego and greed.

on about why there should be no reunion and why GNR now kickass as a band?

So if and when "Chinese Democracy" comes out, will anyone even care?

sure. you obviously will.

Very well put.

I love these journalists who just think Axl is so evil and Chi Dem is just so uninteresting. Yep. It's SO uninteresting you continue to write stories about it.