Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Q: You played your first show with Guns N' Roses on December 5, 1991 (Worchester, MA). What can you remember from this gig?

yes, a lil... i was hungover. i met up with some friends the night before & had a yager party. it took the edge off.

Q: Guns N' Roses had been on a half-year break (last concert in August 1991). How were the rehearsals with the band leading up to your first gig? Did you feel welcomed by all the members in the band?

well there wasn't much rehearsal... the band knew the songs. so i had to learn them on my own & hope they would run through them with me. & yes, they all made me feel welcome & a part of the band.

Q: Are you saying that when you hit the stage for the first time you hadn't rehearsed the songs with the rest of the band?

oh yeah i did rehearse some, but not all the songs. the band wanted someone that could do the gig. they had already done a couple months of touring with Izzy & they weren't into rehearsing at that time.

Q: How was the reaction from the fans, both by having Izzy replaced and by your performances in 1991 and the rest of your tenure with the band?

the fans were great... at that time GNR was getting huge, so their were a lot of new fans & we grew together.

Q: It has been said that Izzy was functioning as a pacifier in the band, being the only one that could reach Axl Rose at times and calm him down. Did you have to do anything specific to keep on Axl's good side?

i don't know if that's true, but it was before i was in the band. i remained true to myself in & out of the band, axl treated me with respect while i was in the band. it was when we were off the road when things went wrong.

Q: The downtime between tours was always hard on GN'R. What happened after the touring?

that was the hard part cuz there was no direction. we started recording the spaghetti incident, but there was no tour. i started my solo record "pawnshop guitars" cuz i knew it was gonna be a long break.

Q: How do you think it was possible for Axl to get so much control of Guns N' Roses that he could call the shots, both by deciding the direction of the music and firing members?

i dont know, i wasn't in that meeting.

Q: What do you think of Slash's recent solo record? Has he still got it as a guitarist or has he stagnated as he's grown older?

i think he's been pretty consistent in all his records. i like the way he used different singers on his last, that was a nice change.

Q: He will only use Miles Kennedy on vocals for his next solo record which is due out in 2012. I would love to see you play with Slash on the next one, you guys share a lot when it comes to musical interests, you are both pure rock and rollers. Have you considered doing any collaborations together, either as part of your projects or his?

no actually i haven't thought about it, just cuz' i've moved on & i know he has also. but i do agree, we do play the same kinda music.

Q: Guns N' Roses during the Use Your Illusion tours was quite bloated and excessive. Did it ever feel like being part of some rock and roll parody rather than a real, serious touring band?

no, it was a serious touring band. it was axl's vision to have the back up singers & horns. on stage we were a great band that played loud & proud.

Q: Was it hard to cope with the drinking and drug use in the band?

no, when we wern't playing, we were partying. just like young fella's enjoying their youth should be doing. we had no responsibilities at that time. travel, gig & party.

Q: Guns N' Roses allegedly started falling apart years before you entered the band, and many consider it miraculous that it lasted so long at all with that much material released. With the tension between Slash and Axl steadily increasing, how was it to be attached to a ticking time bomb? Did you realize that it wouldn't last long before the band would implode?

i don't think the band started to fall apart until the tour was over & axl started to put the new plan in place. i thought the tour was very successful & obviously the illusion records sold well. but u can't have a dangerous band & not have the threat of implosion over your shoulder.

Q: Yeah, many insiders say it is amazing it lasted as long as it did. The strange thing is that it disintegrated slowly more than just blow apart, starting with Steven being fired, then Izzy leaving, then you, and so on until the almost anticlimatic moment when Slash and Duff silently walked out the door. There were no explosion when it all fell apart. And still it exists, although in a complete rewarped form. Do you have any comments on Axl both touring and releasing music under the name "Guns N' Roses"? Would it have been better for the legacy of GN'R it it had just exploded and completely died in 1994?

i said it before & i'll say it again... to me, what made GNR great, was the tension. the rythym of the guitars, axl's vocals, the groove of duff's bass & drums, & the songs. that relationship was magic... the new GNR is axl's band & it sounds like his vision. it's good, cuz he's talented, but it's not a band. GNR is a victim of what's happened to all of todays music: we'll never have another beatles, stones, GNR, metallica, etc.. cuz great bands need great people working together on a common vision. nowadays, it's always one persons vision & key pieces to accent that. if the beatles started today it would be 4 different bands, cuz they all can write. no one wants to collaborate, cuz people are selfish & want the glory to themselves & don't want to admit that they need anybody. it's just evolution, it's not american idol's fault.

Q: Did being in Guns N' Roses open up new opportunities for you?

yes & no, yes i was in a popular band & people wanted to be associated with it. no, that i was just a rhythm guitarist.

Q: Have you ever come to terms with the song 'Since I Don't Have You' which you didn't like at the time of its release?

of course... i'ts a good song. i just didn't think it fit with the original idea of songs that influenced the band. it didn't rock.

Q: Do you keep in touch with any of your former Guns N' Roses colleagues or Izzy?

some... i see duff & his family a lot. i see & talk to matt. & i jam with dizzy every now & then.

Q: Have you seen Guns N' Roses live since you left the band and if so, what did you think?

no, i'm not making a statement, just haven't seen them.

Q: Were you surprised when Chinese Democracy saw the light of day and would you have liked to been part of it?

no, i knew it would come out eventually... & no, i think it's better i stayed out of it.

Q: If you were to offer any advise to Axl, what would that be?

not like he'd take my advice, but start over & call the band axl "fucking" rose & move on like everybody else did...

Q: I am hoping for GN'R's to still release their equivalent of Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours", you know, a new record with a new band incarnation playing new style of music (compared to their blues music with Peter Green, which was also great) which will be so great that people will stop comparing everything they do to the Appetite and Illusion era. Do you see it happen? Is Axl such a musical genius that he will be able to create an epic album that put all criticism to rest?

yes, but he would need to let his bandmates contribute & trust them.

Q: Some fans keep dreaming about a reunion with the classic lineup, perhaps with Matt if Steven is too unstable/alienated. Do you ever see that happen and would you accept if you were asked to join?

maybe, it's a great idea & while everybody's alive & can still play. yes, they should & i would if they asked.

Q: The 1992/1993 lineup of Guns N' Roses with you is considered one of the best the band ever had by many fans. Two brilliant guitarists and a competent drummer. Are you bitter that you never got to record another album with the band and leave an even stronger mark on the band's history?

i'm not bitter, but i thought we could still make some great music together. it's rare that 5 guys have the same musical vision & the chops to back it up.

Q: But that shared musical vision ended after the tour?

apparently while the tour was happening, i just didn't know it.

Q: You've said earlier that you, Slash and Matt were writing songs for a new record in 1994 but that Axl and Duff rejected them and wanted to take the band in another direction. Can you tell me what music you guys were working on? Was it the songs that would later end up on Slash' albums or were this songs that have never been released?

yes, it was what ended up being the snakepit record. not all the songs, but some. i thought the were good ideas that axl & duff could really help develop.

Q: Did they reject them because they wanted to create a different style of music or because they felt they just weren't good enough to be on a GN'R record?

i don't know, but assume not good enough. axl never personally said anything to me. slash told me axl, didn't like em.

Q: What musical direction exactly were Axl and Duff heading in?

i don't know, chinese democracy ?

^^ good point how is calling old members classed as moving on? Gilby is a nice guy but you can`t say he set the world alight in the last 15/16 years i love how ex members criticize Axl but they`re always up for playing together again wounder why$$$$$ ;)

that circus was Axl's vision??


agree 100%!!!


bandnamewise Gilby is right here  ;)

yeah, that came out wrong but he also said: "nowadays, it's always one persons vision & key pieces to accent that"....and thats what it is, Axl doesnt share Guns' name rights with Dizzy or Tommy....even if they're longer in the band than any other old band member has been.

the circus end 1991-beginning 1993:
Gilby was in the band back then...shouldnt he know better than you, Soul Monster?  ;)
but i also have read different things from that, anyone got other quotes from former band members regarding this issue?

i disagree when it comes to power, the GN'R vision etc.....then the name owning thing is VERY relevant. but lets take a look at that quote:

Q: I am hoping for GN'R's to still release their equivalent of Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours", you know, a new record with a new band incarnation playing new style of music (compared to their blues music with Peter Green, which was also great) which will be so great that people will stop comparing everything they do to the Appetite and Illusion era. Do you see it happen? Is Axl such a musical genius that he will be able to create an epic album that put all criticism to rest?

A: yes, but he would need to let his bandmates contribute & trust them.

since this is a recent interview and not from pre-CD times he didnt ask for CD but an future "epic" album (equivalent of Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours"), so actually any CD related stuff with writing credits is irrelevant here.
it comes over wrong when you interpretate that being CD related.....but it isnt. but yeah, though it lets room for your speculation its propbably just is critiques for the 1-person-who-took-the-name-issue thing, smth. which is all over this interview.

i disagree when it comes to power, the GN'R vision etc.....then the name owning thing is VERY relevant. but lets take a look at that quote:

Q: I am hoping for GN'R's to still release their equivalent of Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours", you know, a new record with a new band incarnation playing new style of music (compared to their blues music with Peter Green, which was also great) which will be so great that people will stop comparing everything they do to the Appetite and Illusion era. Do you see it happen? Is Axl such a musical genius that he will be able to create an epic album that put all criticism to rest?

A: yes, but he would need to let his bandmates contribute & trust them.

since this is a recent interview and not from pre-CD times he didnt ask for CD but an future "epic" album (equivalent of Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours"), so actually any CD related stuff with writing credits is irrelevant here.
it comes over wrong when you interpretate that being CD related.....but it isnt. but yeah, though it lets room for your speculation its propbably just is critiques for the 1-person-who-took-the-name-issue thing, smth. which is all over this interview.


the circus end 1991-beginning 1993:
Gilby was in the band back then...shouldnt he know better than you, Soul Monster?  ;)
but i also have read different things from that, anyone got other quotes from former band members regarding this issue?

No that was Slash's idea to add horns and backup singers. If you didn't like it blame him.  : ok:

The name-owing issue is 100% irrelevant to the question of contributions to the music.  Axl is the sole-owner of the GN'R name and yet of the 14 songs on CD, he received sole writing credit on only ONE SONG.  Therefore, you cannot draw any conclusion at all between having a stake in the band name and contributing to the song-writing.  Period.

Ali

You are incorrect Slash did not want any back up singers or horns.

the 1-person-name-band-issue is all over the interview, Ali, and again i disagree that this doesnt have anything to do with music contribution. yes, they got CD song writing credits but surely Axl picked the parts being used on it not them! Axl decided what was to be released officially musicwise. but that wasnt the main point, the thing you got wrong in the 1st place was that you've used and still use CD "booklet proves" for your theory when he was NOT talking about CD but an possible upcoming "epic" album, just re-read the quoted question and answer. Gilby agrees that Axl is a musical genius but doesnt seem to think that the current hired musicians are able to create such a thing. hell, we dont even know what Ashba brings to the table for Guns in the studio, that all will be proven in the future not in the past or on CD. and still you all took the room for speculation and implying that he was only talking about CD (Buckethead, Paul, Finck, Brain anyone by the way)?
about oter subjects in this interview it makes you sound desperate that now another old Guns related musician tells his version (similar to many others) aswell but not the one you'd like to have it being told or being accepted by the main public, some frustation to see Gilby jumping on the big wagon with so many others, huh?

You are incorrect Slash did not want any back up singers or horns.

Wrong, Slash put the whole thing together. Axl said it during an interview back when the tour was going on.

I thought it was Axl's idea but Slash's responsibility to find the personnel?   I loved the horns and tracy and roberta for the record.

No that was Slash's idea to add horns and backup singers. If you didn't like it blame him.  : ok:

I think Gilby's still a little sore from being booted from the band because Axl wasn't pleased with what he was bringing to the table in a songwriting sense.  That's why he feels that Axl doesn't let band members contribute.  If what you bring to him isn't any good, then no, your contributions aren't needed.  Sorry Gilby, better luck next time.  : ok:

And maybe that's what Gilby meant by 'not allowing his bandmates to contribute' ...

Like I said, Axl didn't like what Gilby had to offer so he turned him down.  Just like he offered to work with what Slash brought to him but Slash refused to have it tweaked in any way so he took it for himself for Snakepit.  Do you think Axl should use anything and everything that band members bring his way?  Not sure that'd be a smart move.

What I do think is that most "band" decisions involve input from its members.

When one guy is calling the shots (as you suggested), it then justifies Gilby's comment about Axl needing to allow his band to contribute.

Not really.  Axl is still allowing band members to contribute.  It's just that not everything is used that is brought to the table.  Hell, I'm sure Axl himself has come up with stuff that he later scrapped because it wasn't good enough.  Seems like a pretty simple concept to me, and not a dictatorship as you're trying to portray.

Not good enough for Axl.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the material wasn't good enough to Gilby, you, I, or anyone else.

It does seem like a pretty simple concept.

In most bands, a consensus is involved.

If approval is required by one specific member (as you suggested), that would justify Gilby's comment about the need to allow the bandmates to contribute.

i accidently messed up user names in my reply:
"the circus end 1991-beginning 1993:
Gilby was in the band back then...shouldnt he know better than you, Soul Monster chineseblues?"

sorry, "Soul Monster"!!  :-[

i accidently messed up user names in my reply:
"the circus end 1991-beginning 1993:
Gilby was in the band back then...shouldnt he know better than you, Soul Monster chineseblues?"

sorry, "Soul Monster"!!  :-[
------------
@Ali: about your thoughts of the horn section era "I don't see how you can wash your hands of that situation.".......well, Slash said that he did lots of things to "just to keep things rolling", not to make it too complicated, not to be "un"busy, just to avoid trouble. that makes sense to me, but yeah, cant get totally clean hands in here. would like to read more quotes about that horn section decision. Gilby here says it was Axl's idea.

@Ali:  as for your reply "I realize that Gilby wasn't directly talking about CD"

....finally you did!!
but then you started talking CD writing credits allover, eh....

if you take Gilby's direct quote then this is the fact:
he was NOT talking about CD but an possible upcoming "epic" album, just re-read the quoted question and answer. Gilby agrees that Axl is a musical genius but doesnt seem to think that the current hired musicians are able to create such a thing.

all the rest of your CD talking songs is what you're putting in between those lines.
my speculative take on it would be that Gilby does critizise the method of contribution of song parts being used in a 1-leader-band doesnt help much in creating a killer album when it worked out better before with band members on a similar/same level.

Not good enough for Axl.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the material wasn't good enough to Gilby, you, I, or anyone else.

It does seem like a pretty simple concept.

In most bands, a consensus is involved.

If approval is required by one specific member (as you suggested), that would justify Gilby's comment about the need to allow the bandmates to contribute.

ha, still talking CD writing credits when he didnt even talk about that, Ali? whats our punch-bowl?

You're just refusing to understand a word he's saying, aren't you. ::)

You're just refusing to understand a word he's saying, aren't you. ::)

I think you are all missing each others point here.

The one side is saying Axl lets his band members contribute, which is proven by the "CD" liner notes in which the band got a ton of writing credits.

The other doesnt seem to be denying that Axl lets the band members contribute, they are saying he has final authorization over whats get used, thus limiting their contribution.  So it is not a democracy (no pun intended)  A lot of bands who work as a democracy vote on whats get used on an album and if that means the lead singer gets out voted, he may have to sing a song he didn't write or has no emotional attachment to.  Thats the way a lot of bands work.  James Hetfield had to fight real hard to get "Unforgiven 3" put on the last Metallica album for example.


I'm going to throw a new argument into the mix, which is we have NO idea whatsoever how the song writing process works in Guns N Roses here in 2011.  As usual we have a ton of assumptions.  We know band members contribute, but we have no idea if Axl controls every idea that makes the record, you just ASSUME that he does.  There is this image of Axl ruling with an iron fist but we have no idea if that is what really happens or not.  I do know that Axl has no problem giving credit where credit is due.  Didn't the band almost have to twist his arm to record "This I Love?"  That hardly sounds like a situation where Axl is ordering people around and not listening to what the band has to say.  He said himself that the songs on "CD" were chosen by "everyone involved."

I think you are all missing each others point here.

The one side is saying Axl lets his band members contribute, which is proven by the "CD" liner notes in which the band got a ton of writing credits.

The other doesnt seem to be denying that Axl lets the band members contribute, they are saying he has final authorization over whats get used, thus limiting their contribution.  So it is not a democracy (no pun intended)  A lot of bands who work as a democracy vote on whats get used on an album and if that means the lead singer gets out voted, he may have to sing a song he didn't write or has no emotional attachment to.  Thats the way a lot of bands work.  James Hetfield had to fight real hard to get "Unforgiven 3" put on the last Metallica album for example.


I'm going to throw a new argument into the mix, which is we have NO idea whatsoever how the song writing process works in Guns N Roses here in 2011.  As usual we have a ton of assumptions.  We know band members contribute, but we have no idea if Axl controls every idea that makes the record, you just ASSUME that he does.  There is this image of Axl ruling with an iron fist but we have no idea if that is what really happens or not.  I do know that Axl has no problem giving credit where credit is due.  Didn't the band almost have to twist his arm to record "This I Love?"  That hardly sounds like a situation where Axl is ordering people around and not listening to what the band has to say.  He said himself that the songs on "CD" were chosen by "everyone involved."

I understand what you're getting at, but here is my problem with that:  you're talking about limiting contribution by picking and choosing which parts and which songs make the record.  Gilby said that Axl needs to let them contribute, period.  He didn't say let them decide which songs make the record or which parts/takes make the record.  Gilby's statement implied that Axl needs to let them contribute, period.  As if he hadn't done it before.  He did.  If Gilby meant something other than letting the band contribute at all, he didn't say that and should have.  I'm just taking taking his comment at face value.

Ali

according to Gilby in here band contribution and trust seem to be the keywords for Axl in creating an upcoming great epic album blowing.

ok, in this case Gilby's definiton of "trust" and "contribution" would have need to be explained.
on lowest level any player on an album does contribute on it - which obviously cant be the meaning in here.

still CD wasnt even asked or answered in that interview part directly, still it is put into the line here in your argumentation.
but when assuming CD work was a main part of Gilby's answer.....than (IMO) he means that the way Axl trusts his band members and the way he let contribute his band members on CD, has been the main factor why CD was an inferior music release and didnt get THE worldwide reputation blowing away the older Guns work. he blames Axl's method, and that this would have to change for an upcoming great epic album.

thats the point, Jarmo: its about what he really said vs. what he really means.

Let me ask you one thing.

If somebody says to you, Limulus if you want to achieve this, you will have to do/change/allow for this and that.


How do you interpret that?

Do you think the person telling you thinks you haven't done/changed/allowed this and that before? Or do you think the person is saying that only to inform you, and the person knows you've done those things before?

/jarmo

Ali, so do you, multiple times, by taking your own implication of Gilby's few words all about CD issues and lately pointing out your definition of contribution thoughts on music - trying to point it out as a fact and trying to put Gilby down as being wrong. people see it different, dude, as simple as that. to get a better discussion for this small interview part we'd need Gilby's definiton of "contribution", not yours.

Gilby was not asked "why do you think CD didnt work out that good for the general public?", he was asked about the possibility of an ultimate upcoming epic album....which Gilby agreed to be possibile to do for Axl if he'd changed his method of co-acting with bandmembers in the studio.

in the end its just a short interview part. and as long as we dont have more info from Gilby about what he really meant in his short answer....its all interpretation. and people differ in doing that.

depends on the other person and situation...can be just some info, tip to reach a goal, or an experienced call, or some appel or even some help etc....hard to generalize. thats why i left out the answer before. but as you really wanted it, here it is  :-*

Gilby answers to that if a epic album is possible: "yes, but he would need to let his bandmates contribute & trust them." It doesn't say anywhere in there that Axl need to change any methods...You call everyone interpreters, then you are the worst twister in here....

So if I told you: You need to get in great shape if you wanna finish and win that marathon.

What am I saying? That you're already in great shape and you can win the New York marathon? Or that you need to train more or change something in your training?

/jarmo

which Gilby agreed to be possibile to do for Axl if he'd changed his method of co-acting with bandmembers in the studio.

in the end its just a short interview part. and as long as we dont have more info from Gilby about what he really meant in his short answer....its all interpretation. and people differ in doing that.

You didn't answer the question. Not surprising.

You interpret things your way because that fits your point of view, which is pretty apparent by just reading your signature and quote.




/jarmo

Everyone has an opinion... Let Gilby have his and be done with it.  He has always been a really cool guy and everyone liked him on a personal level.  Lets not try to make him into some dick or something. 

[...]Gilby's statement implies that Axl needs to do something that he hasn't been doing - he needs to change - by allowing the band to contribute.  The band did contribute on every single song and got songwriting credits to prove it on every song but "This I Love".  The problem is you are trying to attribute your definition of the word "contribute" to what Gilby means.  I'm taking what Gilby said at face value and offering a fact-based response on why Gilby is off-base.  That's it and that's all.  I'm done.

Ali

The other doesnt seem to be denying that Axl lets the band members contribute, they are saying he has final authorization over whats get used, thus limiting their contribution.  So it is not a democracy (no pun intended)  A lot of bands who work as a democracy vote on whats get used on an album and if that means the lead singer gets out voted, he may have to sing a song he didn't write or has no emotional attachment to.  Thats the way a lot of bands work. 

Wasn't Velvet Revolver a "real band", yet Scott told the guys the songs they gave to him, he didn't want to work on... And then they made a second album to his liking, or whatever the excuse was.

Imagine that.



Seems to me like many bands work the same way, yet only Axl gets shit for it.




/jarmo

Not good enough for Axl.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the material wasn't good enough to Gilby, you, I, or anyone else.

It does seem like a pretty simple concept.

In most bands, a consensus is involved.

If approval is required by one specific member (as you suggested), that would justify Gilby's comment about the need to allow the bandmates to contribute.

and your problem is that you take your "contribute"-definiton as being the only one fitting for your interpretation of Gilby's words. Gilby didnt say "CD members didnt contribute on CD!" but you're taking his words as if he exactly said that. he didnt even mention CD, neither the question was about that album. as said before the meaning of "contribution" could start with members just playing on an album. add that we rarely have an idea how the contribution part really works in Guns camp anyway. my guess based on old and newer interviews would be it changed a lot from old Guns to new Guns - as Axl being the main man to decide now. even if Finck or whoever talked Axl into doing TIL, it was Axl signing it off to be on CD. if he really wouldnt want it to be on it he would have dropped it. also i dont trust those song writing credits, exspecially that CD booklet at all. but i see your point, i do have mine.

yeah, Jarmo is right here....lots of bands work similar and/or have their own issues. but lots still has to do with carrying on with the huge GN'R name after all those years. the main public doesnt seem to accept CD that much and do rate it as inferior to prior albums.
but hell, Axl still is alive and there might more killer albums to come. hopefully. hope dies last.

as for your question, Jarmo, sure i wouldnt put much thoughts and believes into that person. nice comparing and i could agree with it if ("IF") Gilby really was talking about CD. it also could be bitterness cause of his non writing credits on old Guns albums, it could be his general thoughts on creating a great album, it could be just blabbering, we simply cant know for sure!! as it was such a short answer its surprising that we put so much energy in putting our different views on it.

my current signature and quote are coming from ex-band members directly by the way.

Precisely.

And chances are, this is exactly what Gilby meant by Axl needing to allow his bandmates to contribute.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Axl tells his band that they can't present anything for consideration. The issue is, he appears to consider himself the final decision maker.

I don't believe most traditional "bands" operate under that mentality, nor should they.

And none of the band members seem to have a clue when/if new material might be released, when they might be touring etc etc.

Precisely.

And chances are, this is exactly what Gilby meant by Axl needing to allow his bandmates to contribute.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Axl tells his band that they can't present anything for consideration. The issue is, he appears to consider himself the final decision maker.

I don't believe most traditional "bands" operate under that mentality, nor should they.

ok, you only took part of my quote and from this it looks like that is MY opinion, which it isnt.  Just clarifying that was me breaking down one side of peoples argument here,  I am still in the camp of Gilby has no idea what the fuck goes on in modern day Guns N Roses...

Again, not really.  He ALLOWS members to contribute.  How else can you explain how "Better" has always been described as a "Robin" song.  "The General", which we haven't heard, is supposedly a Tommy song.  Shackler's, Scraped, and Sorry were Brain/Bucket songs.  Dizzy and Paul's contributions are all over the album.  How is that not allowing members to contribute?

No one is denying that Axl has final say.  Guys IN the band have stated that.  I think that happens more frequently in bands then you'd like to believe.  Do you think Steven Adler, Matt Sorum, or Gilby ever had equal say in GNR?  How about the guys in Slash's solo band, you think they have equal say with Slash?  How about Dave Kushner, or even Matt Sorum in Velvet Revolver?  How about anyone not named Van Halen, in Van Halen?  The list goes on and on.

Maybe we're arguing different things here, but we're certainly not seeing eye to eye.

Not all bands operate under that mentality, nor should they if it's truly a "band".

"Shotgun Blues" and probably "My World" are two Rose songs that should have been on the cutting floor and weren't..  Go figure.

Did you bother to read my post after the one you quoted? Apparently not.

I don't think anyone is claiming that Axl isn't willing to consider what's brought to the table by whomever.

The actual debate is Axl being the one with the final say on whether or not it will be recorded.

Not all bands operate under that mentality, nor should they if it's truly a "band".

With that said, Gilby's comment can be justified when he says Axl should allow his bands to contribute.

I take "contribute" as work with the material even if it doesn't specifically fit Axl's vision.

That's only your opinion. Plenty of people like both of those songs.  ::)

That's only your opinion. Plenty of people like both of those songs.  ::)

True, but if polled, they would be two of the least liked in the history of GNR....  Name two worse filler songs than those.. You will probably have a hard time.  I think the music is good in "Shotgun Blues", but damn, that chorus is bad.  I do like part of the versus, but the song "needed" more work.  So the point is, "if its up to Axl's standards, it can be used", or "if its Axl's idea no matter if it sucks or not, it can be used"... Just being the devil's advocate.  He has sole writing credits on both those tunes which are universally considered the two weakest tracks on the UYI2 album.

So the point is, "if its up to Axl's standards, it can be used", or "if its Axl's idea no matter if it sucks or not, it can be used"

thats a good point! and even much more with the new members.

You would take "shotgun blues" over "14 years" (great izzy tune) and "pretty tied up" (a song guns thought was good enough to play live very often)? 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090706153425AAwBqYQ

http://www.newgnr.com/forum/index.php?topic=43317.0

http://www.last.fm/group/Guns+N%27+Roses/forum/193/_/113503

Three threads from three sites....  Everyone for the most part thinks My World blows hard.. Then lots of arguing over what is worse among the others.  Shotgun Blues gets plenty of mentions...

D is a Bon Jovi fanatic and he admitted Bon Jovi is run in a similar manner.  Not really as uncommon as you'd think.

You would take "shotgun blues" over "14 years" (great izzy tune) and "pretty tied up" (a song guns thought was good enough to play live very often)? 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090706153425AAwBqYQ

http://www.newgnr.com/forum/index.php?topic=43317.0

http://www.last.fm/group/Guns+N%27+Roses/forum/193/_/113503

Three threads from three sites....  Everyone for the most part thinks My World blows hard.. Then lots of arguing over what is worse among the others.  Shotgun Blues gets plenty of mentions...

I always liked Shotgun Blues...thought it captured some of their raw energy, and is fast paced.  I would put it above "So Fine". 

well no, they had a rift after New Jersey album and the band came close to breaking up.

Agreed.  I will take "Shotgun Blue" over "So Fine" any day of the week.

Ali

For the record, I love Shotgun Blues and Garden of Eden.   "The Garden" is the only song I really skip on the Illusions. 

"Shotgun Blues" and probably "My World" are two Rose songs that should have been on the cutting floor and weren't..  Go figure.

So Fine has a beautiful guitar solo and Axl's voice sounds awesome on the album.  Also I really like Duff's vocals on it.  And the band liked it enough to play live.  To me, that says a lot. 

Except the only person from the band who's said anything negative about 'My World' is Izzy. Duff has even referred to it as one of his favourite songs. So if it was down to popular vote between - I assume - Axl, Slash, Izzy and Duff, Izzy would have been beaten 3-1... therefore, its place on the record is justified.
Also, no one in the band has ever said anything bad about 'Shotgun Blues', so I'd guess they were in unanimous agreement to put that on the record (as they should have... it's not a masterpiece, by any means, but it's not bad).

I can not stand 'So Fine' on record, myself. One of the worst tracks GN'R ever put out... however, it sounds really good live.

I appreciate you posting this interview and I mean no offense, but you asked some really leading questions, injecting your opinions and some conjecture instead of just asking for his opinion flat-out.

Also, Gilby is flat-out wrong about Axl not letting the new band contribute to the writing.  Look at the CD credits.

Ali

I believe Gilby is referring to the band dynamic, where everyone contributes that existed at one point with early GN'R, but had eroded away by the end of the UYI tour.
We have heard from multiple ex members that Axl's willingness for more creative control was a major reason for the split. That's obviously just one of the many reasons for it, and they all have blood on their hands, but sounds like it started to feel like less of a band, making it easier to walk away.
Maybe Gilby still doesn't feel that dynamic exists with the current lineup, but I got the feeling he was more or less speaking of what he knows through his experience.

The Chinese Democracy era lineup clearly put their stamp on the record, so they do seem to function as a band.
I think Gilby's problem was that Axl brought in new musicians whom were willing to go in a musical direction that the ex members were not.
That would speak more to the trust issues.

I respect what Gilby did during his time with GN'R, but he was really a band aid on a gaping wound at that point.


I love every song on the Illusions, except for My World, which is so brutally awful it's funny.

Shotgun Blues made the album for one reason only... Axl plays rhythm guitar on it...

Oh, come on, Gilby clearly knows nothing about how Guns N' Roses works as a band, how much talented their musicians are. These are just assumptions of a resentful man.

He is underestimating people like Tommy, Dizzy and Chris, people who have done for Guns WAAAAAAAAAAAY more than he has. What is Gilby's role in GNR history? He was merely a live guitarist. He has no right at all to underestimate any other GNR member,

Gilby Clarke is exactly the same than Steven Adler, but with slightly more class...

You interpreted that totally different than how I read it. Doesn't sound like he's disparaging the current members at all. If anything, he's sticking up for them, wishing them more creative influence. Nothing he says sounds very offensive to my ears, with only Axl maybe taking exception to the GN'R moniker comment, but that's Gilby calling it as he sees it, and he has that right. He sounds like he genuinely enjoyed his time with the band. Doesn't sound like his firing is keeping him up at night.

Steven Adler was a HUGE part of GN'Rs early success, no matter how many people would love to convince themselves otherwise.

Also Possibly Destruction

 : ok:

You interpreted that totally different than how I read it. Doesn't sound like he's disparaging the current members at all. If anything, he's sticking up for them, wishing them more creative influence. Nothing he says sounds very offensive to my ears, with only Axl maybe taking exception to the GN'R moniker comment, but that's Gilby calling it as he sees it, and he has that right. He sounds like he genuinely enjoyed his time with the band. Doesn't sound like his firing is keeping him up at night.

Steven Adler was a HUGE part of GN'Rs early success, no matter how many people would love to convince themselves otherwise.

You interpreted that totally different than how I read it. Doesn't sound like he's disparaging the current members at all. If anything, he's sticking up for them, wishing them more creative influence. Nothing he says sounds very offensive to my ears, with only Axl maybe taking exception to the GN'R moniker comment, but that's Gilby calling it as he sees it, and he has that right. He sounds like he genuinely enjoyed his time with the band. Doesn't sound like his firing is keeping him up at night.

Steven Adler was a HUGE part of GN'Rs early success, no matter how many people would love to convince themselves otherwise.

To my eyes, he was in the right moment with the right people in the right place. Guns would have never been the monster it is now without Axl and/or Izzy, and that's for sure. But I don't think things would be now much more different if someone else filled Adler's shoes back in 1985...

As for the above bolded/italicized portion, we know the band writes together.  Also, I'll point out this comment from 2008 from Axl:  "The songs were chosen by everyone involved. I didn?t want to do This I love in anyway shape or form and Robin and Caram insisted gaining Tommy?s and the others support."

Honestly, what the hell else is there as far as creative influence?  They write the songs and help choose them.  What else is there really?

Ali

Yeah that really wasn't my point. I'm just pointing out that he didn't say anything negative towards the current members, and I used his well wishes as an example of the opposite. To tell you the truth, I personally couldn't care less what the others involvement in the songwriting process is. I have a feeling Gilby might be in the same boat, but comments he makes are going to be over analyzed.

If there really is apathy, then better to make no comment at all rather than an uninformed one.  That's the problem here.  Not the analysis over overanalysis.  It's the lack of information on Gilby's part.

Ali

Axl was actually fired by the other guys at least once until management talked sense into them. Their original plan was to replace him.

Also, there are some things that Slash has done that are undoubtedly selling out... but let's not get into that in this topic. It's already hijacked more than enough of them already.

How often do you heard bands say they wouldn't continue if one of them wasn't there?

And then, something happens... And they continue or stop. Only to continue later.





/jarmo

Luckily for us it happens all the time!
As the latest example, I remember reading just 2 years or so ago, Cornell and Thayil saying there was no need to reform SG, their work was done.
I've seen them 3 times since.

Axl was actually fired by the other guys at least once until management talked sense into them. Their original plan was to replace him.

When was that, and who have said it?

I'm pretty sure it was during the Appetite era after Axl didn't show up to a gig (possibly during the Alice Cooper tour?) ... don't remember who said it, but on second thoughts, it could've been one of the many bullshit rumours

It was in Slash's book. And that is about the right time, early Appetite era before everything broke big.