Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Why keep the name? I?m literally the last man standing. Not bragging, not proud. It?s been a fucking nightmare but I didn?t leave Guns and I didn?t drive others out. With Slash it?s been nothing more than pure strategy and saving face while manipulating the public like he used to me. I earned the right to protect my efforts and to be able to take advantage of our contract I?d worked hard for where Slash?s exact words were that he didn?t care. I get that some like a different version or lineup the same way some like a specific team line up or a particular year of a specific car but because you and I are getting played I?m supposed to throw the baby out with the bath water?

I didn?t make a solo record. A solo record would be completely different than this and probably much more instrumental. I made a Guns record with the right people who were the only people who really wanted to help me try, were qualified and capable while enduring the public abuse for years . 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. There?s been a lot of pressure to go with using my name (all external) but that never felt right to me for this band and the parameters in regard to this music have lots more to do with the mindset of Guns than something else. The instrumental I wrote for End of Days that?s more a solo effort at least presently.

As far as a new name?this is who I am not whatever else someone else thinks of. I don?t see myself as solely Guns but I do see myself as the only one from the past making the effort to take it forward whether anyone approves or not and giving beyond what many would or fight for to do so. The name helped the music more than you could ever know and I?m not talking in regards to studios or budgets I mean it as in being pushed by something and having to get the music to a place where I can find my peace regardless of what anyone says. And that wasn?t fully achieved until the last round of mastering and swapping out a version of a track at the pressing plant that had gotten inadvertently changed at the last minute.

Also the name was what the industry wanted as well and the burden of keeping it was something to endure in order to make the record. After the monies invested by old Geffen (that were decisions made that have worked out for me but I'm on record as having opposed) dropping the name became suicide.

The cost of legal battles has been astronomical but I felt the deal made with Universal was fair for where it is and most things balanced out for both sides.

David Bowie likes Floyd with Barret, many with Waters and those without. And there are those who like all the different lineups. Imo what makes our situation a bit more unique at least in how it?s played out is the ugliness of what really took place. If I?d done what was said then I?d say fuck me too. I also realize this is just one issue in something with upteen however many more so conclusions can?t be formulated off this little bit alone by most which is more than understandable.

That said because someone leaves the shop I started in which I still legally have the rights to the name I started it with? makes up a bunch of nonsense to win public and legal support in an effort to get whatever it is they want at mine and the public?s expense? I don?t feel any reason whatsoever I should have to throw what I?ve not only worked for but fought and suffered for away because some hurt, angry, betrayed, misguided and lied to people with a lynch mob mentality, joined by others who could care less (especially in the media), enjoying the controversy and hate, choose one over the other regardless of what?s right because they want what they want. And you can still prefer then as opposed to now and no one?s arguing your right to do so.

In regard to nuGuns, I get that sometimes it helps to be able to clarify. Personally I call this Guns and the Illusions or previous lineups old Guns.

We can play what we want as far as I?m aware.

It wasn?t so much that it was a good course or that if looking back I could do something differently it?s that for better or worse it was the only course and had I not done this Slash would have succeeded in destroying me publicly much more than he, others or myself have so far and I would have gone bankrupt.

I don?t know where I?d be but there?s clearly no happy ending there and with everything else that had gone on in every other area of my life the devastation isn?t something I feel I would have overcome at least to any real degree publicly. Hopefully I would?ve been able to pick myself up enough to get a job or sing somewhere else but I doubt anything that significant.

The sharing thing is interesting but even with all this time the complications of the red tape and trying to get something out fall on my world to sort and not theirs. They are amazingly supportive and do their best to keep me in up spirits and focused which I had less and less of in Guns way before Sweet Child caught on. If that were to change then that may be something to look at. I hope for us to grow more together as we continue so who knows.

If I hadn?t secured the rights I don?t know where I?d be and I?d probably call what would then be the current lineup ?Those mother fuckers!!? rofl-lol.gif

The name is something I take great pride in as I feel anyone who?s been a part of it should, the same as other bands or teams etc. The burden when it is such is a nightmare but not as much or as hopeless as I?d imagine without it could have been.

On the what?s the difference? I think I get what you?re asking? I feel it depends on how and in what ways either the formers members are using the association and what the true circumstances regarding why they moved on from both the band and the name that would or could affect the decision to continue on with the name by in this case this lineup and or myself.

 
 
? Last Edit: December 14, 2008, 07:08:29 PM by jarmo ?  Report to moderator
 

Great post skydog-!  :beer:

what more can you say...straight up his point of view....it's all in the chats...he is wide open honest. :-\

I agree, and certain people tend to forget this was discussed in such depth.

It's great to reread this periodically, thanks for posting.  : ok:

End Of Days instrumental?  ???

as I thought, nobody wants to analyze and discuss what Axl actually says on the name issue....too funny.

And this might be a wicked burn if I was not long established as being 100% behind him keeping the name.  I argue in its favor all the time, in addition to constantly pointing out what fools the other two were for relinquishing it.  Axl was smart and they were dumb.

If you have beef with people that think he should not have retained the name, I am not that person.

So go bother them.

meh, you have a point...modified my post..... :P

No worries.

I agree with both the concept in general, and with most of the specific points Axl makes in that post.

I'm going to send this to a few people skydog, I think many could benefit from rereading this :)

Yeah, He came up with the name and its his.  Good business move so there was no way Slash & Duff could vote him out and take the name once Izzy left.

I don't think Slash felt Axl was going to carry GNR on without him and probably did try to block him from using the name when he put a new lineup together. To me it feels like talking about a divorce from a really long time ago and people move on with their lives. Some people can be friendly with their exes, some never can get over the hurt to be able to be in the same room with them. We have no idea what was said that was so malicious that they can't even speak to each other.

I don?t think many people are questioning why Axl kept the name.
In fact, I think most people in 2015 are so very far removed from the time when they gave a shit about what Axl and his latest incarnation of GN?R are up to.
There are people that weren?t alive back when Guns ruled the world that can now drink legally in the U.S.
There was a time when the world was waiting to see what Axl was going to do next, but by and large, those days are over.
It?s a testamant to how incredibly talented he is, and what a mark GN?R made back then that people cared for so long.

But back when everyone still cared, it wasn?t so much about why he kept the name. It was why he thought it was a good idea to keep the band going, and how he could possibly think it would work without the others. Regardless of how anyone here feels about Slash today, the reality is that back when Guns was the greatest band on the planet, it was Axl and Slash front and center. Both of them close to, if not equally recognizable. Sure every band has a shit ton of casual fans that just by the album and press play, but they also have plenty of fans that read the booklets, and know who contributed what to each song. So they know Izzy was instrumental in the band?s sound. They know Axl wasn?t playing the drums and bass.

Let?s water it down.

Say you start with a band of 5 members. These 5 members create an album that you buy, and love, and a fuck ton of other people do too.
Now say you replace 4 out of those 5 members, or 80% of the band with new members, then sprinkle a few additional members on top of them for good measure.
Then replace a few of those members who replaced the members that created that album you loved. Do this over the course of a couple decades.

Now granted this hypothetical scenario is done with the benefit of hindsight, but would you expect this band to continue making records that you enjoy?
Would you truly be surprised if some people were skeptical that they could? or felt that this situation sounds like the makings of a new band altogether?

It would be difficult to convince your casual fan that is was a rousing success.
Chinese Democracy became an industry joke for all the time and money that went into it.
Your casual fan probably felt that a new Guns N? Roses record should sound like a well oiled machine.
Instead it was all over the place, and sounds like the debut of a new band trying to find it?s way.

I don?t think any reasonable, objective person would have expected much different results knowing the specifics of the situation.
I did. I expected greatness, and I downplayed the alumni?s importance because my fandom got ahead of itself.

But most saw Axl?s attempt at keeping GN?R ?moving forward? as a futile gesture, and all these years later he?s done very little, if anything at all to change their minds.
If anything, the few that still care are even more confused.

So to answer your question, I?d say the name issue is not only not ready for bed, but is awake, coked out and ready to rock for all eternity.

I expected Axl to try.  That's where my disappointment lies.

Not in keeping the name.  Not it even replacing the whole damn band.  Those are hardly ideal, but I was ready to roll with it all.

What I was not ready to roll with, nor really thought would ever happen, would be an Axl too unsure or insecure to really try and make this work.  That's the part I will never get.  And I can't roll eyes back far enough in my head when I'm told how he is one "moving things forward".  You gotta be shitting me.

That old Sorum quote nails it.  He could have taken the ball and run with it, or dropped the ball.  Matt argues he dropped the ball.  I, however, argue he never even took the field.

I'm still all in.  Still hope there is another album.

But anyone that wants to tell me this has been one big 20 year clusterfuck, I can't credibly refute those claims.  The only ones willing to try and sell that rebuttal are GNR lifers who already think he does no wrong, and it would only be accepted by other GNR lifers that never think he does any wrong.  Everyone else would laugh you out of the room.

I think even Axl would agree that it?s been a clusterfuck.
How anyone could argue otherwise is difficult for me to comprehend.
Calling it a clusterfuck is putting a bow on it if you ask me.

Most people saw it as a losing proposition out of the gate, way back in ?96, ?97, whatever, but I don?t think anyone actually foresaw it going as awry as it ended up.

The real kick in the dick is the lack of music from Axl.
There will always be some people that refuse to accept the idea of GN?R w/o Slash, Izzy etc but that would fade over time.

Curiosity would eventually get the best of them, and if the music sounded good, that?s all that matters in the end.

For instance, I think Layne Staley has one of the most unique and amazing voices I?ve ever heard.
Unfortunately a lot of bands came a long trying to mimic his sound, and we?ve had to endure a lot of shitty music as a result of those failed attempts.
He?s without a doubt irreplaceable.

Naturally I thought the idea of AIC continuing on without him was sacrilege, but I still bought, played and enjoyed the shit out of those records even though I really don?t consciously consider it to be AIC.

So while I don?t think the masses will ever truly understand/agree with Axl?s intentions of ?moving forward? as GN?R, I think it?s safe to say they would strongly prefer to hear Axl with whomever is in GN'R today over nothing at all.

That AIC example is a good one.  I was a huge AIC fan.  I consider them AIC in name only without Layne, but that doesn't mean there aren't still some good tunes in there.  Because they at least tried.

Axl was never going to eclipse, or even match, what the old band did.  Just was never going to happen.  All you can do is put your own stamp on things, your own vision, and put out work that supports that vision. 

15 original songs in 19 years time?  Coming up more than a bit small, by any objective standard.

 ;D ;D ;D

In regard to nuGuns, I get that sometimes it helps to be able to clarify. Personally I call this Guns and the Illusions or previous lineups old Guns.

Touche/

 :smoking:

Of all the types of threads on Guns N Roses message boards... this is by far the worst one   :)

I think Corgan referred to the Pumpkins as a sort of traveling circus - a name that won't die and he won't let it... somewhat similar feeling here too

Not to get too defensive of Axl's position, but anyone who thinks that Slash and others wouldn't "get over" all of the bad blood in a second if Axl got them all together and announced he wanted to do an original 5 member Guns tour..is lost.
It's all about the name - it's all about the $

I agree to an extent, but we know for a fact that it isn?t all about the name and money to Slash and Duff because they walked away of their own volition.
Matt most likely would have too. Steven didn?t have a choice.

Axl clings to the name like a life preserver, yet seldom works within it, or outside of it.
At least from a creative standpoint.

Now if they were all on speaking terms again, and the option to do a tour was there, why not?
They can play songs they all clearly either enjoy, or are at least willing to play live, and get paid a fuck ton of money to do so.

Rejoining the band permanently?

I don?t think Slash even considers that, because his work ethic and ability to produce is in such stark contrast to that of Axl?s.
Probably even more so than he or any one else could have possibly imagined when he left almost 20 years ago.

Duff? Maybe. He stuck it out with Axl for a while after the others had left once before.
Not much has happened since though, so not sure he makes the same mistake twice. He?s a smart guy.

 Izzy? No chance.

Matt, without the others, highly doubt it.

Even Adler, who would probably give 2 arms for a chance at a reunion would probably give pause to joining without the others involvement.

Not entirely sure I agree here.

Slash laid out specifically in his book why he left.  The reasons given have not changed. 

And money was not on that list.  It was about Axl's unprofessionalism at times, and all the inactivity.

bullshit spin on Slash's part...him saying that is Axl's beef with him (as in he tries to manipulate the press). Push comes to shove, Slash would come back in a Flash. No Doubt.

"With Slash it?s been nothing more than pure strategy and saving face while manipulating the public like he used to me. I earned the right to protect my efforts and to be able to take advantage of our contract I?d worked hard for where Slash?s exact words were that he didn?t care."

So its your position that Slash is actually super cool with the late start times, disrespect to both the fans and the crew, and literal years of inactivity.

This is all "bullshit spin", as you see it?

Nope....Slash is a money grubbing whore and would come back in a second for the big bucks.  :hihi:

Just calling it like I see it.

and last I checked, that crew likely got paid well and knew what they were getting in to when they signed on. If you don't want a job, don't take it.....goes for the contract band members as well. Open and obvious my friend.  : ok:

It's just a matter of who you believe more.  You can't say it's bullshit spin on Slash's part and discount that maybe it's bullshit spin on Axl's part too.  Axl's words could be his revisionist history to paint himself as the victim and in the best possible light...just like what Slash is doing.

Everyone's trying to save face and deflect the blame.  People are (still) upset the old band disbanded, and everyone's story is spun so they're not at fault.

I don't think we'll ever get the truth...best case scenario (IMO) is that they agree to leave the past behind.  If they can't agree to do that, you can waive bye-bye to any thought of a reunion or future collaboration.

tis true Ginger....but Ax hasn't shoved his face in front of every camera in the world spouting shit off daily for 20 years.

I just don't see any evidence (or even a rationale) that Slash would come back and put up with all of Axl's drama...but so long as the check clears, he's good with it.

He could get that check right now.  And for the past however many years.  How can you say the money is the problem?

Face it, the problem is Axl.  I know we're supposed to look the other way on shit like that, but it seems pretty obvious in this particular case.

And none of this is me saying Axl has to change.  He's never going to change.  But that's also why there will never be a reunion.

No, he hasn't.

He says nothing, then complain 5, 10, even 20 years later that he's unhappy with stuff being mis-reported.

It's not a great plan.

No argument there...but staying silent all these years (or sporadically speaking, at best) while others constantly spread lies doesn't do much to dissuade what's being said. 

So Slash is the one holding up a reunion? I don't think that's anywhere close to the truth, but ok. Obviously Axl and Slash have differing views and work at a different pace. They're never going to see eye to eye on EVERYTHING, but I don't think that's a requirement. Slash could rejoin Guns and still have a side project to keep himself busy. And Axl's lateness isn't quite what it used to be. I think Slash's "problems" with Axl are a bit overblown, and he's basically saying that these days.

Only one?  Of course not.

But we're getting into chicken and egg territory here.  Is Axl the one that's the problem for things he won't change?  Or is Slash the problem for expecting a guy to change that isn't going to?  Dunno.  Depends how you want to phrase it, I suppose.

I just don't even consider it a "blame" situation.  I never bought into that "Team Axl" vs. "Team Slash" type deal.

Its just an unfortunate turn of events where no one wins.  Axl is playing clubs and Slash is opening for people.  Fans just make the best of it.

So I guess the answer to the topic of the thread is


No

These same people can not just let it go......

Unfortunately, facts don?t back up your claim.
They rather fly in it?s face.

Slash never ceased being an artist after real Guns? split.
He?s continued to write, record, release and tour in support of his ever growing catalogue.
His technical ability has improved as the years have gone on, and especially evident since he?s been sober.
So when you buy a ticket to see Slash today, you know you?re money isn?t going to somebody just resting on his laurels.
He continues to work on his craft, and he remains interested in being a creative artist.

He could have retired in ?96 and lived off of GN?R royalties, but instead has built multiple successful bands from the ground up, and also found success as a solo artist.

Axl on the other hand, if we consider him to be a creative artist, we are really just giving him the benefit of the doubt, and making assumptions.
No concrete, tangible evidence suggests he has been a creative artist since 2008.
He?s never stepped out from underneath the GN?R umbrella, which guarantees him a far greater pay day than an unknown and unproven entity.

He may have 2 albums tucked away somewhere, but we?ve been hearing those whispers for over a decade.
3 albums over the course of 2 decades still probably wouldn?t necessitate working at a feverish pace.

All we know for a fact about Axl in 2015 is that he was a performance artist up until 2014, and hasn?t released any tangible form of art since 2008.
Unless of course you really want to throw him a bone and give him credit for recording a live performance.

If Slash didn?t want to be in Guns when they were the biggest band in the world, why would he want to be in Guns in 2015?
The reasons he gave for leaving have not only not improved, but have actually intensified.

Pretty fair points.

No..I get it
Not entirely what my point was either.
I'm not saying Slash is about the $
More or less saying that IF something were worked out, it would quickly be resolved, is all

I don't necessarily take either guy's position on the entire thing either..just sort of find it interesting to see/read/hear both perspectives still

I don't agree. Why did he not reunite with VR when it was offered to him on a plate a couple of years ago? VR made considerably more money than The Conspirators.

Am I missing something here??

I thought the point of the original post was a one off type thing.

Seriously the name issue???   People actually want to get there thoughts out over this issue???  Over 20 years later..................

Stick it!!!!!!!!

I'm not sure how true that really is. The appeal of VR diminished greatly after their initial splash of success. Their second album was rather underwhelming. Was there really that much clamoring to reform the band from the masses? Plus, Slash is more of a partner in VR, whereas he's the obvious main draw in the Conspirators. Less expectations, pressure, etc. His situation with the Conspirators may actually be more profitable than another go with VR might have been all things considered.

Probably not much demand for a reunion but Slash took an instant dive from the arenas to the theatres as soon as VR ended. Even Libertad which was deemed a flop at around 292,000 (US) copies is still going to outsell a Slash solo release which tend to go for around 50,000-70,000. Weiland and Sorum have both put out massive feelers; Weiland even claimed that they ''were reuniting''. If Slash was motivated by mere pecuniary measures, VR would be a significant move upwards.

Personally I think Slash has lead frontman phobia. A combination of Rose and Weiland will do that to you.

Hmm, okay. Not sure how it relates to what I wrote.

VR probably also has more "expenses". For example, you think Matt Sorum would be happy to be paid less than the other guys?

Just because the pie might not be as big as it would be in another scenario doesn't mean your slice isn't bigger....




/jarmo

You are comparing an artist (Slash) who is at virtually club level (in the States), with an arena rock group (VR). There is no doubt that Slash's bank account would rise if he agreed to a reunion with Weiland and the boys.

I'm still not completely convinced there's that large of a difference between a reunited VR at this point in time and the Conspirators. VR would move the needle a little more, but it wouldn't exactly shake the earth. Once Slash went solo and had a level of success, VR was dead. He gets to call all the shots, etc. and you can't put a price on that. A GNR reunion would be an entirely different animal.

Lol the vodka was defently typing for me there

Like I said, VR has more expenses. Bigger organization, maybe a bigger headache.

How do you know VR is an arena band anyway?



/jarmo

I'll stick to my Guns. Slash is still a publicity whore. He enjoys the spotlight. He would be back in a second for a reunion.

VR wasn't close to an arena band. When I saw them in the ATL, maybe 4000 people were there and Alice in Chains opened.

I won?t pretend to know what Slash could earn with VR or how it compares with Myles and the Conspirators.
Maybe it?s nets him more money in the end with Myles and company, maybe it doesn?t. It?s a moot point anyways, as there was never any guarantee he would find success with SMK&C.
The fact of the matter is, Slash walked away from a highly successful, proven commodity?and he did it twice.
If his sole motivation was money, he could have stayed in Guns N? Roses, a pretty big deal in their day.

He chose to start from scratch with Snakepit. I think it?s safe to assume he was aware that his new outfit was not going to bring in anywhere near the money he was accustomed to seeing in Guns.

Later he would find success with another new project in Velvet Revolver.
In Contraband, they had the blueprint. If their sole motivation was to cash in, they could have made Contraband II, but they chose to go in a totally different direction with Libertad.
I?m going to assume Slash knew that the more reserved approach he went with on Libertad wasn?t his best shot at the bright lights.
Regardless of the response they got from Libertad, they established themselves as a great live band, so I?m sure at the very least, touring options and the money that brings would still be there.

He once again chose the unknown, leaving his second successful band to go solo.
When he found success as a solo artist, he could have used that blueprint with the guest singers and just repeated the process but he instead formed another unknown in SMK&C.

So without bending over backwards, in my opinion, the ever popular misconception that he?s a whore for the limelight, or sellout or whatever insults are associated with him for actually earning his paychecks are a tough sell.

You make it sound like VR was some unknown garage band. The record companies were offering the band deals to the left and right.
A big risk? More like a big budget marketing extravaganza.

Slash also admitted that he wanted to save VR money by recording his guitar parts for their first album in a smaller studio.... And them admitted that the guitar tracks on the album suffered. Not motivated by money?

Also, he went solo at a particular moment in his career. We all know how Slash's Snakepit didn't exactly set the world on fire (no pun intended) but after VR, Guitar Hero and all that brand awareness promotion he's done during the years, he went solo using his own name and had some success.

I'd say all those risks you see aren't really huge risks, more like calculated steps. But that's my opinion.



/jarmo

bingo...the long and the short of it, without a refresher course on Slash 101, he would come back in a New York Minute if the money was right.

Sure, being an ex-member of GN'R, and one of the driving forces behind it?s success didn?t hurt him/them in terms of getting a record deal.
Did they not earn that luxury? They delivered on the opportunity with a successful debut album.

Maybe you don?t deem it a huge risk, and I may very well agree, but it?s a bigger risk than staying put and just collecting what would have been his enormous share of GN?R?s touring revenue. No? or staying put and just going along to get along with Axl in order to pump a record out, for the sake of selling records? Wouldn?t that be closer to the definition of selling out?

Is it really all that strange to hear that someone might be involved/conscious of their own financial standing?
As one of the most recognizable and respected lead guitarists in the history of rock n? roll, I?d think he?s earned whatever money is coming to him. Especially when you consider the fact that he?s really never stopped. Many of his peers are content milking their past glories, which is their right, but hardly an admirable path.

Didn't say one word about not earning anything. :)

Just pointed out the interesting timing. Once the brand was established, he stepped out of the group and re-started his career as a solo artist.

The risk he took in 1996 when he quit GN'R was one thing. In a way you could say it didn't pay off because he wasn't successful until he regrouped "using" (notice the quotes, don't get all upset about the word) the GN'R name (Velvet Revolver was basically hyped as "GN'R+STP").

I think people can do what they want. If they want to make the most money they can, go for it. No problem.
But don't tell me money isn't a motivator when it's kinda obvious that it is.... At least in my humble opinion.

Image is one thing, reality is something else.




/jarmo

You do realize Axl?s reason in keeping the name was at least partly financially motivated, yes?
He says in much in the chats you posted. Yet, you seem to have a problem with Slash making money..

Slash walked away from the cash cow, but he?d return because he?s a money grubbing whore.
Axl never walked away to begin with, so is he a money grubbing whore?
I?m really trying to understand your logic. It?s kind of fascinating.

Not upset, my man.
I'm picking up what you're putting down.
I never said he wasn't motivated by money, I said he wasn't solely motivated by money. At least I believe that's what I wrote, too lazy to check.
In all honesty, I wouldn't even care if he was. Sure it's not as romantic or great story to hear when entertainers like money too, and aren't just doing it for our personal enjoyment, but somehow I'll have to accept and live with that reality. I've just never heard anyone truly back up the popular narrative that Slash in particular is a sellout, whore for the limelight, or in this case a "money grubbing whore". At least not any more so than other rockstars, entertainers..

Most people who are in the music business need to think about finances as well. It's part of that whole thing.

But then, when you sacrifice your art (which ever field it is in, music, film, etc etc.) for money, you might get called out on it.

For some, Slash has done this more than once, and they comment on it. That's something you have to accept if you choose to admit wanting to save money and then pointing out the guitars don't sound as good as you had hoped, or if you choose to perform with the Black Eyed Peas... ;)




Wasn't he upset about the spending in GN'R?



/jarmo

From all the interviews I've read from Slash, he didn't continue with Velvet Revolver because he was done with the whole super group and lead singer issues.

He seems to prefer to be on his own, where he calls all the shots and controls the direction of the band.

If he was interested in the money he could have gotten Corey Taylor to front VR, or reunite with Scott.

He seems content to put out albums and tour playing smaller venues with Myles and the conspirators.

Sure. I don?t recall the circumstances of the saving money, guitars not sounding as good as he hoped situation, but I?m assuming he brought it up in the first place because he regretted it? or someone else brought it to our attention?
Regardless, sure people can and will call him out for anything they want. Him performing with the Black Eyed Peas didn?t bother me anymore than seeing Axl in that Budweiser commercial. Sure, I cringed slightly at the sight of both, but no real harm done in either instance.
If their dignity can take the hit, I?m not gonna lose any sleep over it.

I?m sure he was concerned about the spending in GN?R. That?s really just not my concern as a fan.
I think it?s really simple for us fans to spend other peoples money. We do it all the time when discussing whom ?our? town?s team should/shouldn?t sign as free agents. Sure it makes for good discussion, but it?s not my money, so I don?t really care.
Izzy was concerned about the wasted money going to fines for late start times. I know Duff had his concerns, or maybe they came later once he sobered up.. Axl had his as well. It?s human nature, but each own?s personal business.

Regardless of how much attention was being paid towards the financial side of things, it didn?t get in the way of Slash, Duff, Izzy continuing to create art, which is all I?m really concerned about as a fan.

Yeah, the Corey Taylor non-hiring is a good point.
That would have been a money maker, because in today?s sick, twisted world, people not only haven?t heard enough of Corey Taylor?s music, but they actually want to hear more! It?s the darndest thing.

Arena band in my neck of the woods,

SECC Glasgow
Manchester Evening News Arena
Newcastle Metro Arena
Birmingham National Indoor Arena

Slash is no longer playing this sized venue in the UK.

He was upset about cash basically being pissed away on the after show parties. About some of those collaborations also, just as many of them could not have any financial incentive. Slash surely could not have expected a financial windfall from playing Spinal Tap, Mike Monroe or Doro?

Financial? You think he did it for free?  :P

Also, it's about building the brand.




/jarmo

I still fail to see how this differs from any other entertainer.
Most people, regardless of profession, are getting something in return for any type of service rendered.

Do you think Axl is out there playing all these concerts (when he?s on record as saying he doesn?t enjoy performing) out of the goodness of his heart?
No. We see Axl when Axl is being paid to be seen. Might even play your wedding if you've got a few million burning a hole in your pocket.
It?s the way of the world.

There are very few, if any exceptions. Maybe Cat Stevens..

Point taken... :P

but, Cat Stevens? nice.  :hihi:

Didn't you just say earlier that Slash admitted the guitars on the albums suffered due to the studio he recorded in that was his original idea?  He admitted he made a mistake and I am sure he learned from it. 

I have said for years now that I don't understand this whole 'sell-out' idea.  If Slash wants to play another Super Bowl with Fergie then more power to him.  If Axl wants to do another Budweiser commercial for the next World Cup, great, go for it buddy.  In the end its their lives and they can do what they want.  In my personal life, I try to be as productive as possible every waking moment.  I don't really have 'down time' where I don't have something planned.  I might spend my time doing some stupid shit (and I certainly have done that), but at least I can learn from it and grow as a person.  Axl, Slash, Duff, whoever are going to continue doing their thing.  If we are lucky as fans that means more music/touring/books or whatever keeps them in the public view.  That doesn't mean it's always going to be perfect and shielded from criticism, but can't we just be happy in general that the artists who we all admired at least at some point are continuing to share their talents with us? 

Can whoever is forcing Baconman to respond to these topics he clearly does not care for, kindly please knock it off?

Its really not fair.

Late fees for missed curfews, paying the crew overtime, etc.  All that shit does add up.

This isn't to say that the band was clipping coupons in the their prime, but you really can't justify these expenses.  Really just throwing money away.

You just have to accept the condemn one/condone the other philosophy that many people share here.  This is a pro-Axl site?so his actions are looked upon in the truest of light and Slash?s actions not so much.  If Slash played a wedding could you imagine the shit he?d get here?  It doesn?t have to be mutually exclusive.  You can be a fan of Axl while at the same time appreciate Slash and his post-Guns career.  That doesn?t mean you have to like GnR songs sung by Myles (only Axl?s voice can do those songs justice, IMO) but Christ people, we?re almost 20 years from when Slash left?do we still need the Axl rules/Slash drools posts?  Talk about a dead horse?

Yes I did say it. And I also said people will notice and comment on it.

I also should've said that I'm expecting the Slash Defense Force to be out in full effect claiming it's not a big deal. Nobody said it was a big deal, nobody claimed he's not allowed to "whore himself out". It's his choice.

But when your image is so much about being cool, you have to be careful. Saving money and making money can be very cool. But at some point if you step over that fine line, you'll be labeled a sell out.

 


Not everybody built their image around being the "cool guy in a top hat".

If you market something one way and act in another way, some will notice. Slash went from playing with Iggy Pop, Lenny Kravitz, Michael Jackson to playing with The Black Eyed Peas and being on various TV shows that weren't necessarily his "target" audience.

Some GN'R fans don't agree with all the decisions he's made, just like many don't agree with Axl's decisions. But they still choose to come to a GN'R site to point it out...






/jarmo

Yeah, I think its crazy.  I never understood it.  Even when the split was fresh.

This is our favorite band of all time.  These were two major figures in the success of the band's prime.

How can you suddenly discard one like he was never anything, just because the other one got mad at him?  Their issues are their own.  The fans don't need to take sides.

Sure, everyone has the right to judge another person's choice in hats, or bicycle shorts.
Luckily we can listen to their music from afar, and don?t have to be seen in public with them.

Playing with a range of musicians from the Godfather of punk to the King of Pop shows maybe he?s not concerned about the sellout police.
Not unlike Axl, or any other artist, he probably doesn?t want to be pigeonholed, or told who is socially acceptable to associate himself with.
Maybe he doesn?t have a specific target audience.

I remember he took a lot of heat for playing with MJ when it happened.
I?m sure he doesn?t regret it even though it meant losing a few cool kid?s endorsements.
Especially whereas he wouldn?t have that option today.

I guess we live in a world where being out there doing things is uncool, but holing up in your mansion for the better part of a decade is the height of nobility?

They are both living their lives.  How cool or uncool one finds each path is the very definition of subjective.

I never really got the issue about the name thing.

Stephen was fired, okay.

Izzy quit. He comes back occasionally to play shows, so he must be okay with the current situation.

Slash quit.

Duff quit, read his book, he said he quit. He comes back every once in a while to play shows, so apparently he's on good terms with it.

So, yeah of course we, as fans, would all love to hear a new GNR album every year, but that?s not what?s going to happen. We may never get another album, and we?ll have to be okay with that.

Certainly, if Slash had retained the name, we?d get the two Snakepit albums branded as GNR. While they had their charms, they weren?t all that great. If the name had remained "only these guys together can use it," we wouldn't have even got CD.

Personally, I'd love to hear more stuff from the current lineup, Bumblefumble or not.

As soon as someone mentions him doing something bad, it's met with "but Axl...".
Kinda weak "defense".  :hihi:

The point I was trying to illustrate earlier was that he went from playing with people who were considered either icons, legends or newcomers (Lenny Kravitz for example) to playing with anybody. I hope you enjoyed that Insane Clown Posse track or the Black Eyed Peas collaborations.  : ok:




Good pints, and I agree with this.  : ok:



/jarmo

It was actually a lighthearted stab at both Axl, and Slash?s attire.

Slash still plays with icons, and some not so iconic figures. Hasn?t really changed.
I can dig me some Lenny Kravitz, but he never threatened to be anything special.

ICP were absolute nobodies when he played with them.

just to change directions, for the record, I am an old school gunner....would take Slash or Izzy back in a second (no disrespect to Richard because, to me, he is a hell of a player). I am on the fence with Duff only because I am a big Tommy fan as well....they are both great imo. Personally, I wish we could have them all. Bucket, Robin, Richard, Brain, Matt, etc and do a Gnr Rock and Roll Circus. Ax needs to think outside the box...a Gnr festival of all current and former members playing solo spots, Gnr spots...mixing matching...just jamming all kinds of shit....wrong thread!  :rofl:

Not a doubt in my mind that "Velvet Revolver" would have been called "Guns N' Roses" if he legally could.  Why the hell not?  It made great business sense.  Its the Van Halen model.  Toss out the problem lead singer, and rock on with a new one.  Van Halen made a shit ton of money for 10-15 years doing things that way.

I have never subscribed to the theory "oh, Slash would never have done that, out of respect".  Yeah?  Bullshit.  That's easy to say when he literally couldn't do it if he wanted to because of the dumbass deal he signed.

I have never been a reunion guy because its a pipe dream.

But that was also rooted in the (now seen to be foolish, in my opinion) belief Axl was real interested in doing new stuff with his new band. 

Yet as I'm watching residencies built around 25 year old albums, and setlists with more and more older songs in there...at that point, shit, why not get the real band?

I still hold out the slimmest of vain hopes Axl has one more run in him with the new band.  I still take Axl at his word in that interview last year, until he proves otherwise.

Fingers crossed.

Wasn't necessarily aimed at you.



And after they were international superstars? ;)




/jarmo

Hahahahaha

The man makes a point.

I think he virtually has in the past, especially when a pal such as Lemmy or an ex-gunner comes calling.  Obviously he will receive mechanical royalties but how much of those will he get from certain collaborations? A Matt Sorum solo album?

On your second point, he is dammed if he does, dammed if he doesn't, really.

Well I cannot disagree with you there. I have liked some of the collaborations but some of them have been awful. The one that really shocked me was P Diddy at some award show.

They are both fuck ups in opposite ways. Axl stays in bed all day and never does much of anything whereas Slash whores himself out to just about anyone who can be bothered to ask. Stick them together and you have the perfect rock star.

I think some appearances sit better with his fans, or rock fans. Motorhead is always gonna be cool. Insane Clown Posse or the Black Eyes Peas.... Not so well.

If he had spent time in interviews talking about how much he loves the BEP's music, then it would make "sense". And some of the criticism might've been avoided. One of those "He's a fan and he loves their music so of course he'd want to play with them". But when that isn't happening, the "sell out" yells will appear...



/jarmo

But why does he need to justify himself?  I am willing to bet that he is not a fan of all the music or artists he has collaborated with, but that is why I appreciate what he does.  He is making himself more diverse.  I don't get why this is such a touchy subject for so many people.  When Slash is on his deathbed and looking back on life he is going to have so many amazing stories to tell, and some not so amazing, but he did it and experienced all that life had to offer him, good and bad.  Slash is the type of person I aspire to be (not musically, I am a horrible musician but I am talking about other aspects of life).  Make the most of every day you have. 

An argument can be made that what Slash did by playing with MJ, BEP, etc., was a very ?rock n roll? move, because it was unconventional.  Everyone was telling him to do something (or in this case, not to do something) and he decided to say ?fuck you all, I?m going to do what I want, when I want, and I?m not going to be pressured to conform to what a rock n roll artist should do.?  Kind of sounds like someone else too, right???

I feel you a little. *going back to listening to babymetal* :P

Nobody needs to justify anything. I'm only explaining why some fans think of him in a certain light. That's all.
While you might not agree with those fans, I'm trying to explain why. Not saying whether or not it's right or wrong.

Some are quick to say these fans are wrong, yet when provided with some examples, they still maintain their opinion that nothing is wrong. It's fine. Just telling you why the other fans have that perception that he's a "sell out" and will do anything for money.

What's diversifying himself and keeping his name out there to some, is whoring himself out to others.



/jarmo

How can you defend the Budweiser ad yet defend Slash and the Black Eye Peas appearance. To me they are both shining examples of selling out.

As Ginger King said... if Slash got paid a million dollars to perform at some rich guys wedding... he would have been slaughtered here...



I can't believe that in 2015 we are still bashing Axl for this or bashing Slash for that in order to defend them in their stupid high school drama filled feud.

I'm grateful for both of them and their work post breakup.

I think for some, they can rationalize someone endorsing a product they themselves approve of. If an artist performs with an act they don't care for, it might not sit with them as well. I think a lot of us have enjoyed a Bud or 2,000 over the years. Not many of us have "openly" rocked out to the Black Eyed Peas on a frequent basis.

The whole business is based on "selling out". It's the name of the game. But some things you can stomach more than others.

I do not know how anybody can possibly rationalise the truly embarrassing Budweiser ad. At least Slash's appearance was a live appearance and therefore broadly musically. The advert consisted of merely a vacant looking Axl raising an arm with a bottle of terrible beer alongside two females. In truth they are both examples of selling out but one law exists for one guy (Axl) that does not exist for another (Slash).

Since you got so much time on your hands, why don't you make a list of the adverts Axl's appeared in versus Slash.

By the way, the Budweiser commercial was done for Brazil's World Cup, probably the biggest TV event of last year.
It's not like he was playing with the Best Buy band or trying to sell you a VW....





/jarmo

Is there a facepalm emoticon here?
You do realize we are talking about a band that put a song called "Nightrain" on their very first LP, right?
"Your misconceptions and fantasies along with your misguided sense of entitlement don't dictate my actions." -Axl Rose

Good point.  :hihi:

Maybe he thought it was about taking a train at night...  ;)
 


/jarmo

Come on now.
Having a go at Slash?s BEP performance is all well and good, but to turn around and claim Axl?s Budweiser ad was any less of an embarrassment is a bit of a mind bender.

Ideally I?ll never have to hear either train wreck rendition, that both Slash and Axl respectively endorsed, or find myself in a position where I?m forced to drink the canned/bottled piss they call Budweiser.

I wouldn't wish these scenarios on any of you fine folk, either.

So in the USA, the Super Bowl is sort of this massive TV event as well....

I am with LongGoneDay, I cannot for the life of me understand how either is different from the other or more acceptable.  I am just happy when any members of the AFD band are out there doing anything.  Whether or not I personally like what they're doing doesn't matter in the end, at least they gave me the opportunity to judge it for myself by getting out there.  I guarantee if Izzy was doing TV advertising for shampoo next week we'd all freak out because he was finally back in the public eye. 

Again, if you have such strong feelings against Budweiser, and it sounds like you do, you're not going to like Axl endorsing the product. I like Bud, and saw the ad once online, so it didn't have much of an impact on my life. Not a fan of the Black Eyed Peas and I didn't think it was one of Slash's finer moments, and I saw that one live so it had a larger impact. It was cool to see him there, but it's a stretch to say that Axl's Bud commercial equates to Slash's numerous public appearances. There's a reason South Park made an entire episode about Slash playing at malls, 8 year old birthday parties, etc.

There's nothing wrong with getting out there and pushing your brand, but people are going to comment on it, and sometimes in a negative light. Same goes for Axl. Lord knows he gets plenty of criticism. It's all par for the course.

Sure, one is an advert, another one is a performance.

Like I said, this was about WHY certain fans think of Slash as a "sell out". It's not about what Axl's appearance in that a commercial means to you.
Nice way to switch focus, again.

So it's been established that making a commercial is "bad".
What if you make multiple ones AND appearances with people who you don't consider your inspirations or don't necessarily listen to?

I guess still, the answer is "but Axl made that one commercial....".




/jarmo

slightly off but artists certainly aren't going to make money selling music anymore....Trent Reznor interview in RS...

As an artist, there's the difficult transition from realizing that where you used to sell an item that you got X amount for ? those days are over. And the toothpaste is not going to go back in the tube. And people aren't going to suddenly want to buy CDs again and feel good about overpaying for them. That's a fact. Most of my peers have swallowed the bitter pill that I have swallowed, which is that you don't make a lot of money selling music these days. It's just the way it is. I don't think that's the way it should be, but that is the way it is. So I'm excited to accept that.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/trent-reznor-on-apple-music-other-services-left-me-feeling-lacking-20150630#ixzz3eeUaAWsj
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

I get it. I understand people will question/criticize anything and everything. Myself included. It?s our nature.
But you like Budweiser, the beer. How do you feel about the actual commercial?
Could you tell me with a straight face(I?ll take your word for it, you being a fellow Pats fan and all) that it was a cool commercial?
Did you enjoy that musical performance?

I?m in the same boat, neither impacted my life in any way.
If I was asked to rate them, I think they both sucked, and I?m not going to try and put a bow on either instance just because I happen to (usually) like the music these guys make.

I think the ?sellout? term is overplayed, not unlike this discussion, but it?s a free country and people can think what they want.
Some seem to want to paint Slash as the sellout, but give Axl a free pass, but you can?t have your cake and eat it too.
Unless you really want to, then I guess you can.

Yeah I'm dreading the day I can't walk into a record store. Hopefully it won't happen in my lifetime, but they are all dropping like flies in my area.

The Best Buy band...wait, isn't that Guns n Roses?  :hihi:

IMO, to say that Axl's product endorsements (didn't he also endorse headphones too?) are altruistic and Slash's are whorish doesn't make sense...unless you don't like Slash and really like Axl.  Then, it makes perfect sense.  Sure, Slash has been in the public more...but that's likely because he's still doing stuff like releasing albums, and thus it makes sense from the marketing/business side of the industry to stay relevant in the eyes of the public.

Again, Off topic...but I think the times are a coming where we return, very much, to a "patron" model for artists.  You already see it with stuff like Kickstarter, patreon, etc. 

Because the current model? It sucks for the artist.  It's "ok" for the label..but even they are starting to sink.

Itunes is nice, in some respects, because it lets the artist monetize their art down to a granular level.  It also, really, almost eliminates the NEED for the label, and it allows the artists to very quickly turn around product to the consumer.

The flip side is: Product also gets lost in the shuffle because, lets face it, Itunes browsing capability is largely limited to what sells, and what you know to search for.  It's awful hard to find that brand new artist (absent a hit single on the radio) that might interest you. 

A more patron focused model, to support artists (especially up and coming), might work a little bit better.  Given your pool, now, with social media, web facing interactions, and an ability to basically be your own marketing tool with a modicum of html/java experience....and "getting the word out" isn't quite as difficult.  I'd LOVE to see a platform, like kickstarter (but slightly different), for musicians....and I think we'll eventually get around to that.

Anyway..back to your regularly scheduled discussion....

You'll see it, in your lifetime (OK, maybe the collectible vinyl shops will stick around for awhile), I'd guess.

Digital has pretty much taken over.  Those of us still buying physical round objects containing music are in the vast minority, for good or ill.  And with the coming potential improvements in compression and bandwidth....lossless is probably less than a decade (and maybe less than 5 years) away from becoming the standard format.

When that happens....once you no longer need a middle man to compress/package your material for consumption...well, I think that's going to be a VERY interesting day.

I think if Axl shot dead a bunch of kids, people would defend him here. I mean jesus, christ, come on people. He looked like a total dick in the ad.

Yea, unfortunately I think you?re right.
As much as it sucks to not be able to walk into the Coconuts, Strawberries, Sam Goody shops that used to litter the area I live, it will be especially difficult to lose the used record shops. Hoping they can find a way to stay above water.
Used to enjoy the Newbury Comics chain, but they?ve gone to shit, and moved to the malls, my least favorite place on earth.
They?re dead to me.

May as well stray further off topic..
Walked into a record shop in Manchester, NH a few weeks ago, had one of the largest and well kept collections I?ve come across, been open 30+ years. The owner, had to be in his nineties, overheard my wife asking what specific Louis Armstrong record I was looking for.
when I answered, the owner said, ?We?ve got two copies?, and pointed where they were.
He seemed to have his entire inventory memorized.

We were in there over an hour, and his only customers during that stretch.
I remember not too, too long ago having to climb over people in similar places.
The world?s gone crazy.

Maybe you forgot Slash "jamming" with Best Buy employees....



Nobody said this.

It's been pointed out WHY some think of Slash in a certain light. Then in his defense, some of you started bringing up Axl into the conversation. Regular defense tactics. Nothing more.
Still, you haven't exactly offered any kind of proper "defense" so to speak. The whole "Axl made a commercial" doesn't change history....

And it won't change the way he's seen by some fans. Because they saw the Budweiser commercial! And every single appearance Slash has made.  :)




/jarmo

I can only speak for myself but for me, there is actually nothing there to defend if you are specifically discussing Slash's Superbowl performance. It was truly embarrassing. 

I'm not attacking or defending anything. Just trying to make some people understand "why" their hero has been called a "sell out" or labeled as somebody who'd do anything for money. That's all.

But instead of discussing this, it's met with "but Axl made a commercial too!!!!". It's not the issue.



/jarmo

The problem here is, if you merely substituted 'Axl' for 'Slash' and used the Bud example in place of the Superbowl appearance in the above post you would have committed a gross heinous offense and be labelled a 'whiner' and a spreader of 'negativity'. It is obvious they are both examples of 'selling out'. Why the charade? Why the attempt to gloss up one, while condemning the other? Can we not just admit that they were both embarrassing?

You're funny.



/jarmo

FWIT, I don't think musicians get paid to play the Super Bowl, so that's not a great example of doing anything for money. 

Also, I think calling either of them a sell out is stupid.  People go on and on about how there's no money to be made in making music anymore, so therefore they're finding ways to supplement their income.  It makes perfect business sense to maintain your relevancy in the eyes of the public, either through endorsing products, granting interviews, or collaborating with other artists.  Sure, there is such a thing as being over-exposed, but I don't think any of them have reached that level, certainly not Axl.

If these guys were shelling for Sketchers or Weight Watchers, then yeah, I'd say that's pretty lame and sad.  But a beer commercial and performing at the Super Bowl are far away from that.

Again, it just boils down to your perception of them.  If you don't like them, then anything they do will be met with skepticism and ridicule.  If you do like them, then anything they do will be met with amazement and applause.

Slash in SpongeBob  movie, that's all I have to say.lol

Can you not just take it, case by case? That is what I do. Slash? Cringed at the Superbowl; didn't like Blackstreet. Liked the Jackson and Kravits duets. Liked a few songs on his albums but not all.

Once again, you're failing to see the forest for all the trees.

Yes, it's fine to promote yourself, yes it's fine to make money since you're not making the amount you used to with record sales. Yes, yes, yes.

Does that mean you can do anything and people won't notice?

If there were equal amount of commercials to be "condemned", you might have a point. But there isn't!
So the question isn't whether or not it's right to make commercials, it's not about if it's bad to make money, it's not about how everybody sold out or how this guy dislikes that guy etc. It's always been about WHY some think Slash looks like he'll do anything for money.

The sooner you get it, the better. Now, go on, tell me how it's his right to make commercials and appear with anybody who asks....  :hihi:  :peace:



/jarmo

Then let's take the name Slash out of the equation.  Answer this for me:

A member of the Appetite for Destruction era Guns N' Roses participates in a late night talk show.  Are they a sell out for participating? 

A simple yes or no will suffice. 

I honestly don't remember the ad that much. I literally only watched it once, maybe twice. Thinking back though, I did not like the version of PC in the commercial one bit. If I had seen the ad incessantly on TV, maybe it would've bothered me more. Honestly, that's the only problem I had with the ad, that awful rendition of PC. But I'm not sure people would've felt much different if other versions were used. If the original AFD version was used, people would be screaming about him using material from the past. If they used a live version from the current lineup (whatever that may be), people would be screaming that they have no right being in an ad and how's it disrespectful to the original lineup.

I'm not familiar with the band that was featured in the actual ad. Maybe they're big in Brazil and that's why they were used? I don't know, and I never really gave it much thought after my initial and only view.

No.

I never claimed anybody sold out!  :rofl:

I don't really have issues with people appearing in adverts or selling their songs for them. Not a problem.

Like I've repeated numerous times, I only pointed out WHY some think your guitar hero isn't exactly the poster boy for integrity for some fans.  : ok:




/jarmo

Right?you?re enlightening us as to why some people think Slash is a sellout, money-grubbing whore, but that?s not what you think.  You?re just providing us insight into the psyche of the anti-Slash fan?which again, is not you.  Got it.  : ok:

Guitar Hero? Didn't Axl sign off the music to be played on Guitar Hero? I am not a fan of the Guitar Hero either but it seems both Axl and Slash signed off on the music.

One law for Axl here, one other for Slash.

Exactly.

I'm not a fan of his, so whatever he does doesn't really concern me. I'm a fan of his work in GN'R though.
It's like Joe Perry. I like Aerosmith, but if Joe Perry wants to sell hot sauce, it's his choice. :)



The comedy hits just keep coming. :D

Maybe you mean "one law for Axl who doesn't do a lot of publicity to promote himself and one for a person who does almost everything to promote himself"? ;)

 :P




/jarmo

Sigh... now I remember why I stopped coming here and frequent MyGNR more.  I guess at least we established that going on a late night talk show is permissible by all. 

I assumed that was a slight against Guitar Hero before. Now before GN'R music could be included on Guitar Hero, a person called W Axl Rose must have signed off on the music to be included. Presumably then he had no problems allowing a computer game to use gnr music.

Because I'm not allowed to make a little joke on your behalf? :D



You can't take everything so seriously.

It was a few words making light fun of a person who was on the box of a video game as a character as well as being a guitar hero to some.
Simple really..



/jarmo

We can dance this dance all day...wasn't Axl a character voice for Grand Theft Auto?  Does he lose integrity for that? [cue: but Slash has done more].  Do you understand why some people (not me) would have a similar conclusion about Axl as you say they do about Slash?

Of course, Slash is out in the public more.  That's not really up for debate.  But, he has more product to sell.  He's releasing albums, and with that goes along the marketing aspect.  I submit it would be really weird if Slash was doing this stuff without an album or tour to sell. 

I would hope that Axl, if and when a new album comes out, would take a more pro-active approach with the marketing of it.  Seeing him stand behind it and get back in the spotlight would do wonders.  I'm not saying do a duet with Fergie...but Lizzy Hale???

to be fair I think Slash needs to do more things to promote his brand than Axl has to do to promote GNR.

I can understand sometimes it has nothing to do with the Rock N'Roll way of life medias tries to sell to
teenagers, but well, every adult knows it's bullshit for a large part anyway.

so yeah, cynical years, business take-over, lawyers & less money, industry mutation and Taylor Swift.

You mean comedic jokes aimed at rocks artists are actually permitted here (so long as you are talking about Slash)? Why all the solemness and nervous tension concerning the red head then?

Do I understand it? Not really. I mean, then you're pretty hardcore if you think Axl is some kind of "sell out". Considering how selective he is about what he takes part in.
Kinda like people who thought Metallica sold out when they made a music video.




Sometimes it's difficult to tell though. Promoting the paperback release of his book? Animal campaign just in time for something else?




Like I said, you're funny.
You should be the last to question this site considering all the garbage you post about GN'R.




/jarmo

How by the way can you not be a fan of Slash when he contributed so much to the songs of the band you claim to follow? From Appetite for Democracy which is a good indicator of the most recent setlist, Slash co-wrote nine songs and wrote the lead guitar lines for a further seven songs on top of those nine. 16/25. Boy you must really like the CD songs and nu band covers/solo songs a lot.

Haha k.... got it  ::)

Good luck with the site Jarmo.  I am sure it will be booming here once your employer Axl decides to release those "two or three albums" worth of material they have lying around.   : ok:

Cus of divorce?

Nikki's songs (the band, motley crue) often get associated with Vince. Just saying.

I think the only reason people call Axl a "sellout" is because people call Slash that. I could be wrong, but I don't think many people outside of GNR message boards are talking about Axl being a sellout for being DJ Tommy K, or whoever the hell he was on GTA. Or for doing an ad that aired primarily in Brazil during the World Cup for Budweiser. Because very few people outside of these boards knows or cares that he did those things. I'm sure they also have bigger complaints about him. Him being a sellout is probably way down low on their list.

On the flip side, most people do know that Slash was the face of Guitar Hero and that he's performed with anyone who asks him. I think it's a weak argument to try and defend Slash. He's doing quite well on his own. He's having fun, and seems fine with the career choices he's made. So why the need to keep score? Anyone who questions Slash, needs to be reminded of Axl's faults and we go through this, "yeah, well he did this, so he's worse" routine.  :no:

Ah, whatever. Some things will never change. Have at it!

And before people misconstrue things. It obviously does work both ways. People tear down one to build up the other. It's tiresome, predictable, and boring. But I guess that's just the way it is.

Hahahahaha.

I won't even try to explain this to you.
Since I already explained it in my earlier post. If you had actually read it properly instead of jumping to silly conclusions you would've saved some precious time instead of making the above post!  : ok:




Thanks.  : ok:




/jarmo

Nice post...I agree that, to the general public, no one is saying, "man, Axl is really over-exposed."  To the contrary, most people are probably wondering where is he.

Yes, obviously when comparing the two, Slash has done far more things in the public realm.  It's just mildly annoying for people to ignore that Axl has done some of the same stuff, although he gets a pass because he's done less of it.  Really, it's not about what's being done, but who it's being done by.  Arguably, DJ does a ton of promotion and endorsements for various products.  That doesn't seem to be too much of an issue here.  I get it.

7 pages later...

I think Slash takes more heat because he's already a household name, so maybe people feel he doesn't need to overexpose himself. Whereas a guy like DJ Ashba doesn't have anywhere near the name recognition, so people give him a pass.

Slash did what he had to do to stay relevant after leaving GNR, and he did a good job of it. I just think some people wish he'd be a little more selective with his choices. And on the flip side, people wish Axl put himself out there more. They're going to do what they're comfortable with though, regardless of what the public thinks is right or wrong.

Jarmo's the man. Not sure why people are surprised that he sticks up for his friends.  Axl is also the man, those albums will come out, and they will be awesome. Anyone is of course free to disagree, but that's just my two cents. I think once the next album is released us fans will be so happy about it that we will get along better for a while and I'm really looking forward to being here and being a part of all that.

I doubt that Rudy....it will be even worse after the album comes out. :-\

and the most recent discussion about Axl/Slash has zero to do with why I started the topic...lock it!  :hihi:

ps....let's be honest, anyone who signs with a major label has sold out. They are all in the business to make money...some just like money and exposure more than others.

Skydog, if you thought that your thread was going to be the end all on name discussion then you were foolish. No offense.  It's a hot topic. I said it once and I'll say it again. The name should have been retired. Period. Axl got the name. Fine, but then do something with it. If he didn't want to release albums or keep it as bluesy hard rock band then no need to keep the name. He could have had an Ozzy like career and do his own music. He knew the name would bring in money and headlines.

The arguments that I have seen on this thread have been a bit absurd. Both Axl and Slash are doing things for money. It's a bit obvious. I don't consider neither as a "sellout", though. I want to support both of them in their endeavors. Both founded this band. Both created one of the GREATEST albums of all-time. They should both be respected and not hated upon.  That's all.

I started the thread just to show Axl's opinion on the name...people like to tell everyone what Axl was thinking. I was just pointing out that this is actually what he said about the subject...everything we should want to know from his side. I guess my thread title is a little off from my point. I know they all have their side too. I just tend to go with Axl's side because, well, it makes sense...much more so than Slash and Duff's recollection.

Now, in hindsight, I too wish Axl would have done a solo project so we wouldn't have all this fan bickering. However, the economic reality of the situation at the time did not allow him too. He had too much invested in it. It was all or nothing.   :-\

ps and don't say we got "nothing". I dig Chinese and am sure the leftover Chinese stew is damn good.  :peace:

The name is from Tracii Guns and Axl Rose (hollywood rose).

/thread  ;D


Now u are applying your self-constructed motivations on to Axl.  Not that fortune and fame isn't a motivation for all of us...

The fortune bit might be right, but loads have walked away from being famous, arguably Izzy was the one person the rest have to be most gratful for, yet he was the one who who tried the hardest to remain out of the spot-light

I know how the name came about dude. Let me ask you this. Was the name well known when Tracii was in Guns N' Roses? Did they have any hit songs when he was in the band?

How am I applying my "self-constructed motivations"?

We're into popbands (and the rulesets therein) now? :confused:

Songs they wrote became classics on afd but thats a mute point to me. Respectively the name belongs to Axl and thats in imo justifiable in most aspects and the former line-ups are rightfully credited.

Gnr is not just the 'afd-band' just as nazareth is not just Love Hurts. You get my drift?




Looked as you indicated Axl mostly wanted the name for money and headlines, which was a motivation you yourself added.

In the current version of reality that we are all living in here, Axl Rose kept the name.
The next 20 years unfolded as they did.

Who knows how things might have been different if The Axl Rose Band, or W.A.R., or a new band called Chinese Democracy or something else emerged in the late '90s?

You are missing the point. No one cared for GNR when Tracii was in the band. The band became a  huge hit when Slash and Adler came on board.  The band became a household name with AFD, Lies, and UYI. It's definitely NOT a moot point since this is one of the reasons why Axl  wanted the name.

Definitely not a "mute" point since so many people are determined to try and discuss Moot points.  :hihi:

GNR has had multiple lineups since conception, I have enjoyed something about each incarnation. GNR existed before Slash and exists after he quit .

Well, I agree with you Emily but 3 months with Traci, Gardener, and Ole hardly constitutes an "incarnation". Honestly, there are only three lineups in my mind, and they center around the albums and who made the albums. Afd/Lies lineup...the UYI lineup...the Chinese lineup (the people who actually wrote and played on the record).

Touring and who has played live shows is a whole other matter.  :hihi:

Ha. Funny Emily. :) I was tired when I wrote that. I had just got back from watching fireworks with my father and was heading off to bed. 

I usually classify lineups by years rather than labels, it is more precise.

I never saw the original lineup, but I saw the classic lineup and subsequent lineups quite a few times over the years.

Just a joke, no harm intended  :beer:

Who made the songs?





Compared to? Slash and Adler? :P

Many of the songs that guns is famous for (took years, afd wasn't an instant hit) derives from Izzy, Tracii, Axl.



I know Slash, Axl, Duff, Steven and Izzy was the guys who got a contract with Geffen. But who used the name before Adler and Slash got involved? Where does the name come from?

It was a simliar case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgoroth_name_dispute) in Norway where the original user of the bandname won in court. Short story: Guitarplayer makes the band >>> Bass and Singer joins >>> the band is more comercially successfull >>> wants to use the band without the guitarplayer >>> lost in court which I agree to.

Axl lived by the name first and justifiably has the legal rights.

It's therefore his property regardles of which members makes it a 'popular music band'.

Totally respect people who don't find the band relevant without Bucket, Slash, AFD-lineup or w/e, but still...




'one of the reasons' ok. ;) but Axl Rose as a brand is basicly equally as big.

Letting comercial relevance and personal like decide who is the legitimate user of a name isn't valid imo.

I would insist tho, on the moot point, that 'Axl-guns' is more relevant to the public than 'no-axl guns' :yes:

no puns :peace:




Gonna add that I like king/gaahl-era most btw. kthx, just talked 2 myself thar :coffee:

What songs are these exactly? The only song on Appetite that was written before Slash joined the band is Anything Goes which was a Hollywood Rose song.

Reckless Life and Shadow of Your Love are Hollywood Rose as well. 2 other songs on official Gnr releases. Tracii has ZERO writing credits on any Gnr songs. Come on, let's call it like it is.

He could be mixing Tracii Guns up with Chris Weber.

I know. :) It was funny as well! :)

I completely disagree with you on this. All 5 were important. Each contributed something to the band. That's why they were successful. All 5 plus Matt, Dizzy & Gilby will never reach those heights again.

what the hell did Gilby do? Play on a bunch of cover songs....please. The very definition of hired hand. Zero songwriting credits as well.

Here's one way to look at it.....your right, nobody cared when Traci was in the band.  However, it was  Traci and Axl's band.  Traci quit.  It's now Axl's.  Axl CHOSE Duff, Steven, Slash (with help from Duff, still Axl's call), etc to be in HIS band.  So just because they made it big with certain people means Axl should give the name up? 

You ever think that the reason Axl wanted to keep the name was because it was HIS in the first place?  If I start a business, make it big with certain people, they quit.....I'm not changing the name.  And music is a business, plain and simple.  Just because some artist before GNR (under different circumstances) changes their name or goes solo, doesn't mean it's the right way to do it and certainly doesn't mean Axl needs to do it that way.   

Random thought here.... I wish this site had a "like" button or an "upvote" button or something. Something to show support to post but if they don't really have anything else to add. I dunno.

As far as the name, I agree Axl was right in keeping it. It's his baby and whoever brought up the whole business thing was spot on! High Five!

Ok, I'm done.

The reality of the situation is that Axl was exactly 1/5 of Guns N? Roses when they made a name for themselves.
Nothing more, nothing less. He just happened to bring the name in. If Steven had brought the name in and the wherewithal to legally secure it, he could do exactly what Axl has done.
Then people could write their revisionist history about how Guns N? Roses was always Steven's vision, and he?d find success regardless of lineup and insert more fantasy bullshit here, and there.

The name alone was worthless until there was a band worth giving a damn about, which was the AFD lineup.
Geffen signed 5 people, not one. Geffen saw potential in a band. Not one member.

Of course Axl went on to secure the name, which was his right. I don?t see a lot of people disputing the legalities of the situation.

More so the moral, and artistic side of things.
From the outside looking in, it appeared Axl thought he alone was Guns N? Roses, and that came across as delusional and egotistical, and rubbed people the wrong way.
Guns N? Roses was bigger than any singular member.

They met their demise when they stopped functioning as a band of equals, and more like a business with a ?leader? and his employees.

The reality of the situation is that they were NEVER equal by ANY stretch of the imagination...that is the definition of revisionist history. If you think Adler was as important musically and image wise to the public as Axl and Slash, you are out of your mind. If you really want to get down to nut cutting time, Izzy, Duff and Steven never really meant shit to the public. It was Axl and Slash. Period. To say Gnr would be the same today if Steven owned the name is absolutely insane...a very AVERAGE drummer who literally wrote nothing would be more important than one of the most iconic, charismatic lead singers of all time...wow....just floored. Gnr attained worldwide, international success purely because Axl and Slash, to an extent, had the drive to want to be the biggest band in the world. He wanted to be Queen, Zep, Aerosmith all rolled in to one. If it wasn't for his vision and willingness to change, they would have been one album wonders, broke up, and faded in to obscurity. He pushed them to record November Rain, Estranged...hell even SCOM. He pushed them to be more than the Sex Pistols meets the New York Dolls meets Aerosmith. Come on man.....it was never equal.  ::)

The equality part of it comes from the partnership structure of the original lineup.  They were all equals, each getting a 20% cut.  That changed when Axl took over the name and the entity changed from a partnership to a corporation, with Axl employing other band members. 

It was equal, but equality breeds resentment?especially if some people feel they are doing more than others.  Also, I think you?re shortchanging the contributions of the original lineup, both musically and in the public, except for Axl of course.

were you there? How old were you in 1987? Tell me, tell me what I saw and read in article after article after article.....what did you see then? For the record, the old bands material is run and controlled by Axl, Slash and Duff...1992 partnership has not changed in that regard.

I thought Adler mentioned that he got 15% and Axl got 25%.

Will look for that quote.

I'm with skydog on this non-issue by the way.

And he has done nothing of any real note post- GNR.

Could say Geffen made them big :hihi:


Say 86. 

Thats when the 'afd-lineup' released 'Live ?!*@ Like a Suicide' ...which nobody cared about :P

Emily, Axl was like 40% or something. It was laid out during the Adler trial so look there.

Yes.  I was there.  I read every article you read and followed their every move.  It was the first band in a long time where almost everybody knew every band member's name.  That's why I say you're shortchanging the contributions of the other members.

Nobody (perhaps not even Axl) viewed GnR as Axl's creation back then.  To say so now is just revisionist history.  Go back and watch some of their early interviews and tell me what you see.  I see 5 guys working together from the ground up to create something awesome.  They each had nothing, and they turned that nothing into the best selling debut album of all-time in the US.

Now that I read that, I think you might be right.  Did they ding Steven after they reinstated him (and Axl got his extra 5%)?  I don't recall.  Anyway, I agree it's really a non-issue.  My point was that there was much more collaboration and we're in this together type mentality with the original band (at least in the beginning).  Their lifestyle made it completely unsustainable, but it's way different than how it is today, where literally every band member except Axl has no clue what or when anything is happening.

Agreed.
Gilby has released something like 4 solo albums.
Axl Rose, in comparison, has Chinese Democracy, the Remix album (TBA), Chinese Democracy 2 (Soon come), The Interview with the Vampire soundtrack, Appetite for Democracy, the End of Days Soundtrack, Big Daddy soundtrack and GN'R Greates Hits.
That's 8 to Gilby's 4.
Suck on that haters.

Axl JUST brought the name in??  Lol. So when a general manager has a vision of the team he wants to put together and the guys he wants to win with, does he get any credit when that happens?  And let's say this GM also plays on the team and plays a big role.  Let's say he's the point guard.  Does he get any more credit?  Axl put GNR together plain and simple.  Maybe it was dead ass luck how the guys came together, but I don't believe that.  From my knowledge of GNR, Axl was a perfectionist from day 1 with GNR and made sure he was working with the right people.  And then once he had the guys, he played a big part in the music.  Even to this day, although not pumping out music, Axl still finds really talented musicians to join him.  You think that Axl should be seen in the same light as let's say Steven?  Or any other member for that matter?  No he shouldn't because he was and is the leader.  Axl has always been the one out front making the decisions.  And with that, he has always been the one who took the heat as well.  And that's how business works.  When teams win, the GM/coach is praised.  When they lose, they get shit on. Slash plays guitar and wrote a couple songs and riffs.  Axl put the band together, was the voice for the band, the lead singing, did a lot of the writing, and above all...was the one with the vision and made most decisions.  Axl was NOT 1/5 of the band...and that's reality!   Have you had the pleasure and stress of managing anything yourself?  By your comments, it doesn't seem that you have.  Or else you might understand the difference between Axl's role in GNR and let's say Stevens.  I'll tell you what, it's much more difficult to be the GM/coach than it is to be a player.

Geffen saw potential in a band that Axl put together!

Your right, I'm not disputing the legalities of keeping the name.  I'm giving another perspective on why he may have kept the name.  Because it's HIS band!  Your saying it's immoral to keep the name because the guys who were in the band when they had the most success are gone now?

How do you know gnr wasn't a business with a leader when it first started?  Because I think it was. 

Yes, and?

Was the name Axl and Tracii's creation or not?





Not saying they werent (those five did indeed become a real good rockband consisting of hungry musicians), just saying why I think it's fair Axl owns the name. There is little doubt what album was/is the most popular and historicly relevant.


Arguably. It's good to work together to acheive a common goal.

If don't see that as a valid argument against Axl being the legit user of the name tho.

Ginger, when the band split up the overall songwriting credits contributions, they decided that Axl had 42% of the credits...Izzy had 2nd most, Slash, then Duff then Steven. Axl discusses it during his testimony in the Adler lawsuit. I believe Izzy had 25%.

I would get the exact figures but don't have time to listen.

I'm not talking about when they split up...I'm talking about when they started. 

So?in your 8 column for Axl, you?re including 2 albums that haven?t been released (one of which is a remix of songs already released), 3 movie soundtracks that each have one song from GnR, a concert DVD, and a greatest hits cd.  That.  Is.  Crazy. 

Axl is better than Slash, Gilby, Steven, etc. at many things...releasing music is not one of them.

I see the original band as being a fairly equal relationship. Of course you would devalue Adler slightly on the simple premise that he was not a songwriter whereas the other four were, but Adler still contributed so much to the overall groove and sound of Appetite.


From my knowledge of that period, it was actually Duff's suggestion to bring in Slash and Adler. Rolling history further on, it was Slash who deliberately sought out and recruited Gilby and Matt as replacements. I think you are also underestimating the importance of Izzy Stradlin for that earlier club period.

Ginger, after the lawsuit, Adler did retain 15% and Axl was 25%, Duff-Slash-Izzy 20%....however, during Axl's testimony in the lawsuit, he said the band had different %'s for each member. I have to listen to the testimony again....aye.  :P

What kind of math is that! Axl has 15 original songs recorded and released over a 24 year period. Good gracious.

I think you're misinterpreting what I?m trying to say.
People put too much emphasis on the name. They seem to think that the fact he owns the rights to the name proves it was his baby, or his vision, his drive and so forth. No, it was a band made up of 5 members that made one of the greatest rock records of all time.
They all made their contributions, and earned the success they achieved. Guns N? Roses was just the name on the label. A name Axl happened to bring in, or suggest. Owning the rights to the name doesn?t equate to being the mastermind. I'm well aware of what Axl brought to the table. He is one of, if not the greatest frontmen of all time. I'm also aware that he had a pretty talented bunch around him, and the power grab did him few favors. The proof is in the pudding.
We have seen what they achieved together, and what they have achieved apart. In Axl's case, stagnation.

See I think you may fall into the trap of thinking it was all Axl?s masterplan, which wether you are conscious of it or not, devalues what the others brought to the table.
There was no singular vision. It was a collaborative effort. Axl was 1/5 of the band. That?s really not up for debate. He was one of the 5 members in the band Geffen signed called Guns N? Roses. They didn?t sign Axl as a solo artist. They liked the band they saw on stage.

I fully understand that Axl was a brilliant lyricist, singer, frontman. That much we certainly agree on. I don?t really think it?s relevant trying to determine who was the most important member. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that together they made some of the greatest music ever recorded, and we also know that they began to gradually implode after the loss of the first member.
Take a song like Estranged. A song solely credited to Axl. It?s a brilliant song, thanks in part to Axl?s great lyrics, melodies but also Slash?s solos, which are equally identifiable with the song. On the flip side, Mr. Brownstone, a song credited to Izzy and Slash wouldn?t be the same without Axl putting his stamp on it.
We could play this game all day.

Guns N? Roses was very much a band in the beginning. A fucking incredible band. Yet, it almost seems to offend people to say that. As if it somehow takes away from Axl?s contributions.

I don?t believe there was one leader per se with the classic lineup. I think those duties were split.
There wasn?t one person making the all the decisions.

I think the way you describe Axl's role in Guns back then closer resembles his role today, and since the classic lineup dissolved.
From the outside looking in, it appears Axl wanted full control, which he later acquired, but didn?t quite know what to do with it once he had it.

It was pure coincidence why that particular line-up gelled anyhow as you had all these different bands and line-ups. Most of the members of the appetite band had played together in some formation or another: Hollywood Rose (Axl, Izzy); New Hollywood Rose (Axl, Slash, Adler); Road Crew (Slash, Adler - briefly Duff); Guns (Axl, Izzy, Duff). It took a series of coincidental happenings for all this to fall into place. Presumably if this was all some, masterplan by Axl, it would have fallen into shape far earlier. Reportedly also (and all the members say this) when it truly fell into place was when they bonded on the Hell Tour. There was no reason before playing the Hell Tour to assume that the appetite band would have shortly disbanded like all the previous bands.

You don't think it's relevant to try and determine the most important member?  Well I wouldn't have even brought anything up if it wasn't for your "only brought in the name" comment. 

[/quote]

From my knowledge of that period, it was actually Duff's suggestion to bring in Slash and Adler. Rolling history further on, it was Slash who deliberately sought out and recruited Gilby and Matt as replacements. I think you are also underestimating the importance of Izzy Stradlin for that earlier club period.
[/quote]

Yes, that's why I pointed that out in my earlier post.  My point was that it was always Axls call however.  Other members suggesting things, Axl always had final say.  Am I wrong about that?  That's one definition of a leader. 

It takes a series of coincidental happenings for most things to happen.  That shouldn't take away from how important Axl was to it all.  And I'm not just Axl loving here.  With his drive and passion, I believe he would have been a huge part of any band at that time.....regardless if some of the other members were in it or not.  My one concern would probably be Izzy.  All this talk of 1/5 is bull to me.  I mean I can see how "technically", yes...1/5.  But think outside the box here.  Axl meant so much more to their success than 1/5.  Then I would say Izzy is right behind him.  Axl and Izzy we're going to be successful at that time!  Didn't matter if Duff, Slash or any other member was apart of it.  Yes, those other members played key roles and helped with the success.  But I honestly believe Axl and Izzy would have found success without them.  I don't know if I can say that for the others.   

But it does matter that Duff, Slash, and Steven were there.  None of them (including Axl) were more successful than when they were together (or at least a critical mass of them were together).  That is evident in all of their post-1993 careers. 

Also, you really can't find it within you to see that Slash was going to be successful regardless?  He is widely regarding as one of the greatest rock n roll guitarists of all time.  Pretty sure he (like Axl) would've found success without Guns.

I think there are more great guitarists out there than great singers.

I think FFS have proven the up-shot of all of this debate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGAwp5syXyE  :hihi:

Not if you're looking at the Top 10 of.  Then there are only 10.  And both Axl and Slash make those lists. 

Of course they haven't been.  But just because they haven't been as successful after 1993 doesn't lead me to believe that they ALL need or needed each other to be successful.  Times are different now and things have obviously changed, you can't make that statement.  Even if Axl had formed a band of different members back in the day, had huge success, and then broke up.  The same thing would have happened....they wouldn't have had as much success afterwards.  At that time in their lives (young, energetic, passionate, driven, out to prove the world wrong, etc.), it's my belief that Axl and Izzy were going to be successful, regardless of who they were with.  And I'm not saying Slash or Duff wouldn't have been.  But Axl and Izzy were going to be great!  And in my mind, Slash, Duff, Steven (although doing their part) stepped into a gold mine being with Axl....and Izzy.  

It simply doesn?t work that way. Hollywood Rose with Axl and Izzy wasn?t exactly burning up the charts.
Axl found incredible success with the AFD lineup.
That well earned success later afforded him the luxury of handpicking highly skilled musicians to continue as GN?R after the classic lineup parted ways.
It still hasn?t amounted to much in the way of success. Sure, some people loved Chinese Democracy, but it didn?t come close to resonating with fans on the level of previous albums, even with the money printing moniker attached to it.

Did Axl have the skill/talent to make it regardless of the talent surrounding him? Maybe, but nothing is guaranteed.

In terms of GN?R, Slash was every bit the guitar player that Axl was a frontman. Izzy was every bit the songwriter that Slash was a soloist.
They all stepped into a goldmine.

I think at that stage in the band's history they all had a call. I do not necessarily see Axl as any different here. If you are discussing the recruitment of Slash and Adler in June 1985 then Izzy would have certainly agreed. Don't forget that Izzy quit Hollywood Rose when Axl sacked/had an argument with (depending on whose account you read) Chris Weber and replaced him with Slash. It was the prerogative of any of these band members to quit at any stage. Izzy didn't so he presumably went along with it. We already know Duff agreed as it was his original suggestion in the first place.  There is your consensus.

You've listened to the Roots of GN'R? Hollywood Rose sounded like any other hair band. Alright I suppose but nothing to write home about. They may have been signed and become semi-popular (akin to LA Guns or Faster Pussycat) but it would be presumptuous to believe they would have attained the heights GN'R crawled. Where is your Sweet Child intro going to come from? Who is going to write those punky bass lines? Where is that groove?

Your argument is totally insulting to Slash, Duff and Steven. The five of them were the right members in the right band at the right time. Chemistry is everything for a band. These five had it. Axl an Izzy were in other bands before Guns. Guess what they didn't make it. They all needed each other. They all came from different backgrounds. They had different influences. But when you brought it all together it created something magical. They have yet to replicate the magic on there own.

You can hire the most talented musicians in the world to be part of your band. Doesn't necessarily mean they will have chemistry when you put them together.

Thank you.  I'm not sure why it's so hard to recognize this.  By minimizing the importance of the original lineup, are people somehow validating the current lineup or state of affairs?  The need to prove Axl was right (in keeping the name) because he was always the leader/creator and all others (except Izzy) were just lucky to be picked by Axl is just weird...and factually incorrect.

So were using works before GNR now to try and prove that Axl needed the other players?  Jesus man, you don't just wake up one day and are great.  Well, if you want to use Sweet Child as an example.....it was Axl who saw how good that was.  Slash was playing it as a joke and didn't want to do it. 

Great, that's your opinion.  I totally just insulted Slash, Duff, and Steven.  I'll stand by my comment....I BELIEVE Axl would have made it big without those guys at that time. 

Your missing my point entirely.  I'm not validating the current anything.  My remarks are a simple point of view reacting to someone saying Axl had just as much importance as the others in the band.  I disagree!  I believe he had more.  In any kind of business, there is always SOMEONE who was a little more valuable.  And I initially shared an opinion as to why Axl may have felt the need to keep the name.  To some, those who start something should be able to keep the name if they want to.  But yet, you guys go on about how it's immoral.

Hey, you may be right. But there's no way of knowing for sure. What we do know as a FACT is that he made it due to the contributions from Slash, Duff and Steven.

Well the point is Axl had been in three-four bands since 1983 (Rapid Fire, Hollywood Rose, New Hollywood Rose, LA Guns) and had not remotely demonstrated the levels of greatness evident almost immediately in June 1985 when the Appetite band debuted. And I say 'almost immediately' for a reason. One month after their debut gig appeared a new song written by Rose and Slash called 'Welcome to the Jungle'. Two months later: Rocket Queen. One month after that: Paradise City - you get the picture. Basically the band spent 1985-1986 writing Appetite and most people seem to agree that there is an enormous leap in quality from the Hollywood Rose material of Axl, Izzy and Chris Weber to the Appetite material with Slash, Duff and Adler.  

Slash is dammed if he does, damned if he doesn't under that sort of Axl-oriented analyse but Sweet Child is a remarkable example of just how democratic an unit they were. Slash instigated the thing with a riff to which Izzy placed the chords and Duff the bass line; Axl was meanwhile in a different room putting some poetry against it.

Please don't twist my words to fit your agenda. I never said that Gilby was a songwriter. He reached the pinnacle of his career when he played with GNR. That's what I was referring to.

GN'R wil always be GN'R - with or without Slash.

If your being technical, then Yes

Do you really believe nowadays any former member could replicate the kind of magic GNR had when they were young, energetic, motivated, hungry, careless, etc???  I don't care if they were still together....it wouldn't happen.  And you don't see it with anyone else either.  Yeah, Pearl Jam is still rockin....so are other bands.  But it's not and will never be like it was.  Comparing nowadays to back then is impossible. 

You seem to be (incorrectly in my opinion) assigning the Appetite band's excellence solely on their rawness and hunger. Are you saying Slash and Axl could never work together unless they were homeless, living out of a garage while drinking drinking Nightrain. Estranged and Civil War are obviously not a product of those times neither would a hypothetical late '90s album. Plenty of bands express their rawness and desire in their youth, only to mature and still produce greatness later on. Think, The Stones Some Girls, Queen Innuendo, DC Black Ice. Heck, even Metallica's Black album is not exactly a product of a Bay Area garage band any longer and that is that band at their commercial peak. Some bands have a trajectory of slow maturity.

Bit mean spirited really. Since GN'R Gilby has released four solo albums, an EP, a live album, a greatest hits album and contributed to two super groups as well as producing for Nancy Sinatra among others. How many solo albums have you released?

Let's disect Oh-sos comment.  He mentioned how all together, GNR produced magic back in the day and have yet to achieve any of that magic on their own.  What does he mean by magic?  Is he just talking about the albums?  I took it as all of it together.  The albums, the rawness, the care free attitudes, the energy, etc.  I could be wrong, but that's the way I took it.  So yes, I don't think you see other bands matching their "magic" from back in the day either.  I'm not talking about just albums.  Of course bands can put out a good album later in their lives.  But in terms of having everything else....no.  

And if he is talking about albums.  I'm one that argues that if Slash and Duff were still in the band when Chinese Democracy came out....it would have been perceived completely different.  The media and people all over didn't give Axl a fair listen by any means.  And I will stick to those comments till I die.  Chinese to me, was just as much of a transition from the Illusions than the Illusions were from Appetite.  The Illusions were good albums, but when they came out, they were pretty different from Appetite and turned some people off.  Now a days, people clump all that work together just because it was a different lineup.  In my mind, Chinese is another good album.  So what's different from the "magic" on the Illusions to the "magic" on Chinese?

What was raw about the uyi albums? 

Two great albums out together buy a few millionars, living in mansions, trading tapes.

If the old line up stare together.  They would have released some great music to this day   

But it would not be raw

Stones Some Girls, Crazy Horse Ragged Glory, DC Black Ice, Queen Innuendo? All albums recapturing a magic of a (perceived) greater earlier period.

I do not agree about the media not given Axl a fair shot. CD actually got quite good reviews. I do not remember many bad reviews at the time. Most of the press were given it 4/5 and grades like that. There was even an article I read just recently which claimed that 'cd is one of those underrated albums which will be grow in stature''. It was the listeners who turned their back on the album.

Magic? I suppose magic is subjective. For me the Illusions and CD are nowhere near as good as Appetite. You can attribute the success of Appetite to a 'magic' of the players but I would also cite the production and the songs which are superior than Illusion's or CD's production and songs. Illusion has all these hideous overdubs and too many clangers like Shotgun Blues, My World and Get In The Ring. CD is a complete mess and also has too many poor songs. To listen to Appetite is a lesson in consistency. Arguably the album's only weak link is Anything Goes.

Agree.  IMO, CD would have been accepted more by the public as a GnR album if Slash and Duff were on it...it would have gotten more air play, exposure, promotion, etc.  Besides Axl, no one really knew the other members...what little was known was that when CD was released many of the members that helped create it were gone, so that just added to the disjointed nature of it.  Axl going MIA didn't really help much either.

I think we are all in agreement that if the same exact songs were molded by Slash Duff and Izzy, then the album would have been received better overall. However those three men were not capable of making Chinese Democracy, those songs would have sounded completely different making the whole argument moot.

Hence... different band... different album...different everything... well except the man, the myth , the legend himself. W.A.R.

IDK...who would've thought all of them were capable of making UYI after AFD.  UYI is much different (lyrically and stylistically) than AFD.  I look at CD as a progression of Guns from UYI, much like UYI was a progression from AFD.  There are many songs on CD (TWAT, Better, Prostitute, Maddy, TIL) that (IMO) carry over the UYI feel.

The transitions aren?t comparable, because AFD to Illusions was the sound of a band expanding it?s sound.
The transition from Illusions to Chinese is the sound of an entirely new band, sans Axl and Dizzy. Axl kept the name, hence the confusion.
It?s not the sound of evolution. At best you could call it a gut job, but in reality it?s an entirely new project.

Slash and Izzy?s name being attached to the album wasn?t going to change much if the music was released as it is.
Chinese doesn?t sound like anything Slash or Izzy would be interested in playing.
Slash and Izzy styles are more loose, and they are fans of less polished production.
There is nothing resembling raw about Chinese Democracy.

People can hear the difference. It may say Guns N? Roses on the cover, but it doesn?t sound like the Guns N? Roses they remember.
You don?t need to read the booklet to find out Slash, Izzy, Duff, Steven and Matt aren?t on it.

Slapping their names in the booklet wasn?t going to change how the music was received.

And who was there "driving" the expansion of the sound from AFD to UYI?
I'm not saying he was solely responsible. But do you honestly think the UYI albums would've included certain ground breaking (for GN'R at least) songs if it wasn't for Axl?

Keeping that in mind, with him still in the band, and speculating on a hypothetical what if scenario, it's possible the old band could've taken a similar step from UYI to whatever would've been next.
It's also possible it would've been more of an AFD sounding album. We can only speculate.




/jarmo

I think Axl, Slash, Izzy, Duff, and Steven were collectively the driving force behind the expansion in sound.
Then Matt and Dizzy came along to lend a hand where needed.

Do I think UYI would have included certain groundbreaking songs without Axl? Of course not.
But I don?t believe we?d have them without Slash, Izzy etc either.

I don?t see a scenario in which Slash and Izzy are all of a sudden on board with the squeaky clean production, since that was a major bone of contention when they were together, and seeing what they?ve produced since.

That said I agree with your overall points. We will never know what direction they would have taken had they been able to reach common ground.

No way to really know if they could replicate past magic. But I'm sure whatever they came up with would be good. They are all very talented musicians who've compiled good stuff on there own.

Slash has been fine with many things since he quit GN'R that you don't necessarily associate with him. VR was a bit of a departure for him. For example.

I don't see GN'R as an AC/DC kind of band that has been pigeonholed and can't try something different.
Even the old band.




/jarmo

What I meant by magic was in terms of the music that they created. The image and the attitude was who they were. I think a big part of the connection that they had with the public was that they were the real deal. There were a lot of posers out there but these guys were real. Cant fake that because the public will see through it.

In terms of your other point, CD would've sounded considerably different with Slash and Duff in the fold. I agree that the media didn't give CD a fair listen but I don't think it was all to do with Slash and Duff not being in the band. The album became legendary in music circles for being the most expensive album made. It also took a long time to make. So by the time it came out it was built up so much that a lot of people expected nothing short of perfection.   

Once Izzy left the songwriting suffered drastically, to me he was sure damn important to GNR.
Axl always pushed to evolve the sound of the band, he wanted GNR to be more versatile and more power to him, UYI sans some filler songs is excellent!
The guitar tone of Slash will ALWAYS be GNR sound, whether people like to admit it or not. Hasnt been another guitar to own the sound of the band like he did, not saying the rest are bad guitarrist but they will never be THE sound of GNR, they cant evoke the feeling Slash did with his solos.

I cant believe the posts some people make here, happy friday!  :beer:

AHHHH ???

 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: