Jump to content

Is Axl simply not an innately creative person?


Recommended Posts

What I mean is like...

During his heyday Axl was a good lyricist and good with melodies. But even during his heyday he was nowhere near as productive as say, Jagger/Richards, any of the individual Beatles...Even lower tier bands like AC/DC put out more material in the amount of time (real) GNR existed (let’s say from 1985 to 1996). By their 11th year, the Stones had put out their 12th record. 


That said i think even if you’re not exceptionally talented but you are creative you’ll just have the urge to create, even just for the sake of creating. If you’re a musician, you’ll make music not because you necessarily have “something to say” but because some combo of words just needs to be said, like an urge.


Now, I could be wrong and Axl could literally write ten songs a day and have entire notebooks filled with lyrics and the Vault could even have dozens upon dozens of songs but I doubt that cause if you’re an artist with the resources he has, you’d wanna have someone besides your friends hear them. 


This leads me to believe that it’s not for want of having something to say, or that he’s bled dry and has nothing to write about, but that he simply doesn’t have “the demon”, he simply isn’t innately creative or an artistic person.


what do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Salsh Borski said:

I read the first paragraph and gave up.  AC/DC are a lower tier band than GnR? 🤣


Theyre a good band but they’re not exactly like the Stones or zeppelin or queen or the Beatles in terms of the greatness of their material. Lyrically they’re kinda a lesser beast than bands that aren’t just rocks n thunder even if they are fun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its easier to be creative at home with a built in production studio. Probably saves you a few thousand dollars rather than renting a professional studio somewhere on the west coast. Although I doubt Axl's studio would be the place to master anything or maybe I'm wrong. To be honest Axl could be sitting on a stew of songs but since 'officially' 15 songs have been released in the last 20 years and overall since the Illusions come out, Axl could have a few albums worth of songs stashed away although actually hearing them in finished form takes light years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, magisme said:

It does in a way. The creation is really the only measure of creativity. No creation = no creativity. It doesn't mean productive in the mindless serial production sense, but it has to do something in order to be.

I think the verbiage is off for what the OP is looking for. "Creative" I think implies something dynamic and novel, not just imitating or making something simplistic and repetitive. Making his thesis based off the wrong word takes away from his argument. There are a lot more negation words he could use like unmotivated or unproductive. The only song I think that is uncreative is "This I Love" which is avtistically minimalist. I think the adjective has a different meaning applied to artists as opposed to a farmer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Bonham said:

Except he didn't. 

Every demo we've ever heard, all have the same vocal track. He spent less than a year on CD, all told.

yeah 90% of the time everyone just sat around and did nothing.  All the music and most of the vocals were done by 2001 not counting the BBF and Frank stuff. Which was adde very quickly 

Edited by dave-gnfnr2k
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...