Here Today... Gone To Hell!

The last Guns N' Roses song to feature Slash, Duff McKagan and Matt Sorum, while the first to feature Paul "Huge" Tobias, Sympathy for the Devil thus marks a segue from the "old" band to the beginnings of the "new" band. A cover, the song was recorded in October 1994 and features Axl, Slash, Paul, Duff, Matt and Dizzy and it was released as a single in December 1994 as well as on the soundtrack of the popular film, "Interview with a Vampire." As the song is almost from a hybrid lineup of Guns, featuring the core of "new GN'R" (Axl, Paul, Dizzy) and the core of "old GN'R" (Axl, Slash, Duff), it's an interesting piece.

I'm interested to hear what your views were on the song back in 1994/early 1995 and how you feel about it now, 20 years later.

I loved it. Was a great version.  Loved the movie too.  Tom Cruise proved everybody wrong and he delivered a totally awesome performance of LESTAT!

The movie was great.  Really wished there was a second one

As for the song.

When it was released.  I was like, meh..  Just another cover song from a band that already had officially released way to many covers to actual original music

As for now.

I would love to hear it played live

I would love to see it performed live as well.  Several years back I saw this goofy topless vampire show called BITE at the Stratosphere hotel in Las Vegas that used the GNR version in the show.  Was kinda cool to hear it. The performance was live even though the music was a recording

haha, I don't that show sounds goofy at all.  A topless vampire show, actually sounds pretty hot.

Boobs aside. It was just one of those shows that was so bad that it was good.

I really enjoyed the movie and glad to hear GNR at the end of it. As for the song, I like it better than the original version.

Me too !

I will go with the Stones...hard to top that since it is one of the greatest rock songs of all time. Like the Baconman, too many covers for my taste at the time....was jonesing for some original material in 1994.

Great cover. I think its one of GNRs most underated tunes.

Im not sure is it even possible to top the original version.

Guns version sounds still fresh and they added some great things to it.
Matt did a great job in this one, regarding theres almost no drums on the original version, he arranged totally his own parts, and did it perfectly. I really like what he plays from 6:40 onwards, typical Matt simple powerful stuff. Great solo by Paul in that part too.

Axl is spot on, Dizzy is spot on. I actually think the guitar parts by Paul are really cool. The last 3 minutes sounds like a kegger.

Probably the first recording Duff did after his near death experience.

Great backing vocals by Duff and Paul


I have always like ending with ''thats my name''. ''give? us the boy'' ''dont forget to drink your milk''.
I wonder who said those last lines.

Yet another song I was introduced by due to a GN'R cover...Others include Mama Kin, Live and Let Die, Dead Flowers, Bad Time to Be in Love, Wild Horses, all of SI excluding Big Dumb Sex and SIDHY, Whole Lot of Rosie, "Sail away Sweet Sister", Dust in the Wind and any Rose Tatoo played fpduring CD tour..

I always really dug it. 

Love Axl's vocal and I think Slash really tears up that solo.  I still listen to it pretty often. 

But its hard not to think of all the bullshit that came with recording it.  So, sort of a bittersweet tune for me.

Jane's Addiction also did a decent cover of Sympathy, although I like the GNR version better.

Love it. Better than Stones. This actually was the first Guns release I waited for before it was released. I got into Gn'R a year or so earlier. I was 9, and didn't realize it was a cover.

I thought it were Slashs parts and Paul "imitated" them because Axl said so.

great tune. Slash said you here the band breaking up and he wasn't into it because of the whole PAul Huge drama but I tinnk it's great. I also dig the question-answer soloing which Axl wanted. Slash didn't want to do it but fortunately he gave in and kept the f'n thing going...

EDIT:
I postet the same post in another thread. I don't know why!?

I like some parts, but the whole thing is too pompous.

Yup . I don't like it for that reason as well, plus I like the original a lot.

There's a couple of songs in the bands history, that I can't help but think of the BS drama when hearing it.

I loved the movie... and love when the song comes on at the end doe !

I was 4 years old in late 94.. The first time I heard the song was probably when I first listened to the Greatest Hits album in 2004. Thought it was awesome back then, still thinks it's pretty awesome but rarely listen to it. Got no problem with Paul's parts during the solo.

Killer tune love Axls vocals but I concur with the above its bitter sweet knowing the baggage this song came with.   That being said I've always wanted to hear them do it live.  Be a stellar show opener.  Maybe it will all begin where it ended ✌

No issue with the way his parts sound either. Just a bad situation.

Honestly, I could not even tell.  Had Slash never said that, I'd have no idea. 

It's not like it was the lead, just the rhythm track underneath.  But, I guess if you are a guitar player, you hear it right away, as Slash said he did.

That absolutely enraged Slash though. There's at least 3 videos on youtube with Slash digging into Axl & Paul from around 1995 for doing that. 

Oh, one of Axl's Top 3 Worst Idea Ever, that move.

Not even a question.

It also probably sent Slash into full spite mode.

Paul being included on Sympathy without telling Slash > Slash saying no to Axl working on the three Snakepit songs he wanted > Axl threatening to sue Slash > Tension and drama, all progress halted > Slash's departure.

Yeah, It took me years to figure out what all the bitching was about.   :hihi:

Certainly it was not the beginning of tension between the two, but I would say that what went down with 'Sympathy' was probably the biggest turning point in what would ultimately lead to Slash's departure.  It certainly lead to him taking his proverbial ball and going home, that ball being the first Snakepit album.

If you are going to show that complete lack of respect to another "made man" in your band, you have to be nuts to think he's not going to be livid.

This wasn't like telling Gilby to go get his shinebox.  This was doing it to the second most well known member of the band, and man probably considered Axl's equal in the eyes of many when it came to GNR legacy.

This is the kind of move you pull knowing full well this could go bad, real bad, and just not caring.  You are daring the other guy to bend over and take it.

Slash didn't.

And now, 20 years later, we all wait on pins and needles to see if time truly heals all wounds.

Ya all the complaints from Slash came from once he left the band

How could Axl. Just put anyone he wanted on the song.  At the time he was in a legal agreement with both slash and duff and still izzy to a certain extent.   I guarantee Axl would not be able to pull off, having anyone co me in and play rhythm guitar on a official gnr released song at the time.  Without the ok of both slash and duff

So it was a move by Axl.   A move that had to be approved from slash and duff.  A move they might not of liked but agreed to.   A move t hat slash probably tried to save face with after with by cutting it down

I have no problems with Paul's work with gnr.    I got to watch the greatest live concert from them with him in it.  And I got a album out of him, with huge contributions from him on it.

I see what you did there  :D


What you basicly hear is Pauls guitar on the left channel and Slashes on the right.

Didn't the haggling over the Snakepit songs come before Sympathy Recording? Check the timeline-

*In late September '94, Slash returned to the studio to flesh out the demos refused by Axl into an album that would become It's Five O'Clock Somewhere. The album is ready in the next month.
"Altogether It's Five O'Clock Somewhere took 26 days to record. During that time they also had time to mix the album. And write all the lyrics." (Slash, Aftonbladet, 02/04/95)


*In October '94, the David Geffen-produced Interview with a Vampire, starring Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise, was a month away from release. The soundtrack was among the last things still being mulled over. Jay Aston (from the goth-rock band Gene Loves Jezebel fame) maintains his solo song, Who Wants to Go to Heaven, was in the running for the end credits until the very last minute: then, it was replaced with an original recording of Rolling Stones' Sympathy for the Devil. Finally, someone brainstormed - why not recruit Geffen Records' biggest band to cover the song, given it would do well for the film as well?
"Got a phone call from [Geffen A&R Man] Tom Zutaut, who said, 'I want you to do me a favor, David Geffen's doing this movie and they really want you to do 'Sympathy for the Devil' in it. Originally, they had the Stones version in it." (Slash, Metal Edge Magazine, 04/95)

At the same time, Slash was recording the Snakepit album. He was now hoping the get band back together for the first time since the Gilby sessions in April - six months prior.

for a while, Axl had threatened to sue Slash if those 3-4 demos would be released. The cease & desist order had since been pulled, but Axl had already provided his side of the drama by commissioning third-party overdubs to the '...Devil' recordings.

And true Slash didn't like Paul-"Fuckin' asshole. I hate that guy. He didn't work out, so I am not really sure where the fuck that shit's headed. I'll deal with it when I get off the road. (Slash, The Michigan Daily, 04/95)

But he didnt want Zakk in the band-
"That whole bullshit thing with Zakk (Wylde)... Just to get that story straight, it's nothing against Zakk, it was just not the right... I love jamming with Zakk on his own, as a separate entity, but in Guns N' Roses it doesn't sound right." (Metal Hammer, 11/95)
"[Guns] doesn't sound right with two heavy-league guitar players." (Slash, Metal Express, 1995)

And resented Izzy as well-
"During Appetite..., Lies and Use Your... I had to put up with Izzy the whole time. I never liked playing with him. It was wonderful to escape him on this record. It sounds tighter and so much cooler than anything we've done before. I always got irritated over Izzy's way of playing. It didn't sound right. Before "Spaghetti", we erased his guitar and Gilby put on a new one. It sounded perfect!
 
- Slash
Okej November? 1993
http://www.heretoday...hp?articleid=13


I personally think there were numerous complex issues here, too many to arbitarily assign blame to ONE member as you are attempting to do here - per your usual schtick.

But the snakepit albums and the disputed songs that nearly came to legalities were in this time period too-

Too many complex issues to arbitrarily assign blame to one member.

Anything in particular? 

You don't think Slash crushed it?  I sure do.

I don't like the baggage of the Paul situation in 1994, and don't see how Axl could have handled it any worse.

Having said that, after seeing him as the Yoko Ono of my favorite band for almost 15 years, I did have to re-evaluate after seeing how involved he was in the production of CD.  You never really know who did what, but he's all over the production credits on a lot of songs I wound up liking.

Can't turn back time or unring that bell.  But I don't think its fair to judge him solely on that one unfortunate episode at the beginning of his tenure, which he may not have even had all that much say in, anyway.

I don't blame Axl one bit for showing little interest in the Snakepit stuff.

If that wound up being GNR's follow up to the UYI albums, I'd have been asking what the hell happened here.  It would have been a step back, to put it mildly.

But no amounts off trying to make this part of some larger conversation will ever obfuscate the point here.  To make Axl's decisions on SFTD, done in secret, and against Slash's express wishes, look any better.  It is was then, and is now, a total dick move that shows a complete lack of respect.

I'd say the same thing about Slash if he snuck back in under the cover of night and fucked with Axl's vocals on his own whim.  Both men were at a point in their professional relationship that such actions would and should seem abhorrent.

There were numerous "dick moves" going on in the same time period, the songs Slash had written for GNR but reclaimed and used were nearly a legal matter-lot of bad blood all around.

Slash's guitar work was not obfuscated, Paul's was merely added on.

I think it is honestly ridiculous, uninformed, and biased to continually try to place more blame on a particular member for the breakup- .

Looking back Slash made little effort to make things work. His demos werent good enough to be the next guns record. He reacts by making the record with half of guns n roses anyway.
6 months later, He was not happy with the new guitar players that was brought in. Fair thing.
Slash reacts by going on tour with the old guitar player and talking  shit about Axl and Paul in numerous interviews.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Axl didn't "fuck with" Slash's guitar tracks. The comparison is a crappy one.
A better comparison would be if Slash had got his friend to sing co-vocals on the track.

But then again, not even that would be a good comparison considering we're ignoring all the things that lead to that event....

What was the alternative? The so called best case scenario? Tto let Slash decide who plays what? And that's more fair how than what happened?

We're talking about a song Slash didn't even wanna do. To begin with, here's a song he doesn't wanna record. Then, he agrees to do it and if that's not bad enough to have to do something he originally didn't wanna do, he's also not deciding who plays on it.... It's easy to see why this became a big bad deal for some.



/jarmo

Good thing no one said that then.  What was said was that Axl handled that situation poorly, the situation with the SFTD single.  That's it.

If you disagree, you disagree.  If you see no problem with him doing something behind Slash's back after being told directly it was not the way Slash wanted to proceed, then you see no problem.  If you don't think that's a dick move, then you don't think its a dick move.

I simply can't join you there.

A dick move is still a dick move that should be labeled as such.  Whether its your brother, your friend, or yes, even a singer you like.  Doesn't change how much you like them overall, but the solution to addressing the move in question is not to make believe it was on the up and up. 

There was a reason he did it in secret while keeping Slash out of the loop.  And I doubt it was because he forgot Slash's phone number.



You find someone you can agree on.

Or, failing that, you leave Slash's guitar double tracked, the way it was, absent any agreement on a new guy.

In no rational universe do you erase his rhythm track under cover of night and replace it with someone else's.  That's really the point here.

As I said to Emily just a minute ago, if you can convince yourself there is nothing amiss there, we are just never going to agree.

If Axl really needed to have what Paul ultimately contributed to SFTD, I?m pretty sure he had a guitarist capable of doing so in Slash.
No need to bring anyone else in.
Slash?s opinion of Paul was that he wasn?t a very good guitar player, and in comparison to Slash, he certainly was not.
Duff said Paul was hopeless.
Seeing as how Guns N? Roses was supposedly a band at that point, Slash and Duff?s opinion should have carried more weight than it ultimately did.
A bit shady bringing in someone after the fact. Was it really worth it? I mean, did Paul really contribute anything of note to the song?
I don?t think anyone was pressing rewind and cranking the volume to hear that epic playing by Paul again.

Listening to the song, do I personally think it was big deal? Not really. But Slash and Duff did, and that?s what matters.

As for the overall song. I like it.
It?s not as good as the original, but that?s an awfully high bar.
Slash?s playing is great, and Axl?s vocals are fucking killer.

According to Slash, it was done without telling him. Doesn't necessarily mean it was done in secret.





Where was it stated something was erased in order to put Paul's track on the track? Also, you really do make it sound like a top secret spy mission took place....  :hihi:
How much of that is actual truth and how much have you embellished to try to prove your point?


At the time, Duff had basically just gotten sober. Slash wasn't exactly in that boat.
Duff had agreed with Axl on the songs Slash had written for GN'R, so does that influence his opinion on Paul, to side with Slash? He agreed with Axl, and in order to keep the peace now he had to agree with Slash? Who knows.

But there's all these things that might, or might not, play part in the story and nobody seems to be interested in it other than "Axl secretly erased guitar tracks under the cover of night to be able to put Paul on the song".... Yeah, that sounds like a headline you'd sell some magazines with. :hihi:

Doesn't mean that's how things happened though.




/jarmo

It was a situation that was handled very poorly , no matter how you slice it.

It certainly was a big factor in the implosion.

So was it worth it ? For this cover song ?

For clarification's sake (since you seem to be dancing around it) are you, in fact, claiming :

- Slash knew his rhythm track was getting erased after he laid it down
- Slash knew it was going to be replaced by Paul, who he was on record not being a fan of
- Slash was not the least bit surprised when he heard it after release, since this was all done in the open
- Slash made all this up for some reason

That's where we're going, right?  We'd have to be.  Might as well own it.

From what I remember.  Slash was going to do the rythem parts.   

And at no point did the words "Hey, you know who'd be great on this?  Your boy, Paul." come out of his mouth.

You know what?  Let's get out ahead of the next deflection.

Is there much of a difference between erasing a Slash rhythm track and putting Paul on there, or putting Paul on there before the rhythm track was laid down?

I ask because I can sort of see those wheels already turning.   

Does either choice fundamentally change the fact Paul Huge winds up on a Guns N' Roses track without the knowledge of anyone else in the band but Axl?

Who said it did? Straw man argument/statement.

This was a response to Jarmo passive aggressively introducing the argument that Slash (maybe, can't say for sure) knew about Paul's inclusion.

I'm not taking the passive aggressive route, but rather saying flat out : Slash did not know.

How can you prove that? Slash wasn't exactly sober in those days.

The atmosphere was already strained due to Slash taking the songs back that he intended for GNR and using them for his solo album- it was already tense.

I saw no passive-aggressiveness at all, I think you are imagining things on your mission to blame Axl for everything.

I can no more prove it than you can disprove it, really.

On the other hand, I have direct comments from him saying its what happened.  Do you have direct comments from ANYONE that refute it?

Well, I threw a post up the page asking him to clarify if that was in fact what he was after.

Maybe I read that wrong.  We will see.

Great points! He wasn't happy with Zakk or for that matter to start with- Izzy either.

With the internal drama in Guns now boiling, Slash was quick to set up his Snakepit album for release, ironically, on Valentine's Day '95. Zutaut must've known the risks involved: for a while, Axl had threatened to sue Slash if those 3-4 demos would be released.

"...and rounded out the lineup [of snakepit]with Gilby Clarke." (Slash, Autobiography)

"The Gilby thing did piss Axl off. But Gilby was pissed off too... I wasn't mad at Gilby. I can do what the f**k I want. And if he wanted to work with me after all this shit..." (Slash, Kerrang, 01/95)

If you choose to believe the words of a known junkie, that says a lot about your  motive here.

I ask you to clarify your post and you ask me questions?
What happened to answering me first?


- Where is the info about his rhythm track being erased? It wasn't mentioned in his book.
- Where is the info that this mysterious track was recorded in secret in the cover of the night? Yes, it's possible it was done at night, Axl seems to prefer to work later hours than some others.

I think you're embellishing the story to prove your point. Not unusual. But would be nice to get some facts first...

And you chose to ignore the other stuff I said. Instead you choose to focus on one part of it....




Passive aggressive? There's nothing aggressive about asking some questions.
It's supposed to be a discussion.

I didn't say he knew. I said your version of the event is painted in a certain way. Cover of the night, secretly.
Please. What is this? James Bond?

You make it sound like it was some sort of secret evil mission.
Maybe the reality is that Slash didn't care too much. He was pissed off.
Then he found out after what had happened and it made him more pissed off.

You think he was banned from the studio? You think the studio where Paul was recording was at a secret location on a remote island or something? Maybe a bunker?
Chances are it was the same studio where Slash had worked earlier, with the difference that he left because he didn't wanna deal with the situation and was surprised he wasn't told about what was going on.

Plausible? A crazy conspiracy theory? Nah, you'll go with your version about how it was secret and even used the night to hide it all happening!  :hihi:




Duff writing about that particular time in his book:
Slash was beyond the heavy nodding, but he was still using heroin. Still, that posed no immediate problem for me. When I saw him ducking out to fix, I wasn’t thinking, Oh, that looks good.




/jarmo

Not getting involved in a personal pissing match here, Emily.

But will say this is not really an answer to my question.

I was just looking to clarify that you weren't, in fact, claiming he knew.  It doesn't sound like you are claiming that, so I was wrong to assume that.

As for your post here, no, I can't dismiss it.  I can say it comes across more than a little desperate and an attempt to not have to admit to something that doesn't make Axl look great.

But could any of your alternate theories be true?  Sure, why not?

Maybe it?s possible Axl didn?t fully realize how much Paul?s inclusion would piss Slash off. Who knows.
Communication certainly wasn?t there strong suit back then. Doesn?t appear Axl has made many strides in that regard since.

Thanks.


Like I've said, there's all kind of things that affect other things. Here, we have one isolated thing we're discussion. But, maybe it's not isolated?
There's all kinds of stuff that happened before and around that time that might, or might not, have influenced the thing in question.

It's not about Axl. It's not about Slash.
It's about discussing the event(s) and offering some thoughts on it. It's easy to keep it simple, it's easy to say what you said. But that isn't the whole picture.

Unlike you, I admit that I believe there's more to this story than "Axl erased Slash's parts and secretly had his friend Paul play them". I don't buy that simple version of something that probably took a lot longer to play out.

How's that for open minded? :D



I still didn't see the evidence of the erasing of guitar parts. I did read his book and he doesn't mention Axl erasing anything. Only that the parts were added on top of his.
If you think that's the same thing, then, fair enough. Even though I don't agree.... Putting something in addition to something doesn't remove what was there. Removing something to add something else, obviously removes what was originally there.... Which I'm sure most people would agree with.



/jarmo

Could be.  As in, he knew he's be pissed, just not to a "fuck it, I'm out of here" level of pissed.

My bigger problem is that Axl was willing to roll those dice.  Which is why I initially framed this as a total lack of respect.  You would have to peel Axl off the fucking ceiling if this was done to him in reverse, and he would be well within his right to be pissed, in my opinion.

So how could you go through with it?

Speaking of removing guitar parts or playing over them and mixing them out, didn't Izzy accuse Slash of this during the UYI recording sessions? Hmmmm

True.

Its just that Slash made absolutely no secret how little he though of Paul and how little interest he had working with him on anything Guns N' Roses related.  That's the part that I don't feel is either in dispute, nor concerns that Axl should have just shrugged off and decided (on his own) Slash would just have to get over it.

I think that's a bad way to go about things.  I think its stuff like this that led Slash to say things like "Axl considers GNR his solo project".  Stuff like this is what gives the impression Axl considered himself in charge and with more of a say than his partners.

Or turning him down at the concerts. 

in the liner notes for the Greatest Hits, it says:
Slash - Lead and Rhythm Guitar
Paul Huge - Rhythm Guitar

first of all, slash's rhythm work is still there, it was never "erased".

the solo for this song was [originally] by keith richards (notice how the solo of the original song was done amazingly on time if you had timing right) and keith richards is exclusively a rythm guitarist,therefore he did no"lead work"

and the solo actually works quite well, an improvement pulled off quite well

the trick was,that it sounds like call and response, but it's really not-

- by muting slash's guitar and having tobias lay down the solo at a much louder tone, you have the same effect at the opening guitar note of iron man by black sabbath(which made it sound creepy in that song) only a little more off, so as to simulate call and response with the exact same line, making the line never get dull on the first 20 or more repeated listens

No, he didn't like the guy. Is it fair? Did he give him a chance? Did he offer any solutions to the problem other than "let's get Gilby back"?
A lot of things that might have affected the event...

On top of that, you had Duff, Matt and Slash. Is it possible after Izzy quit that Axl felt he needed somebody who had a sense of what he was about and Gilby wasn't that guy?




/jarmo

I could take or leave Gilby.  Certainly never felt his spot was in stone.

As for letting Paul into the fold, think of like challenging jurors.  When one side has a concern, that potential juror is bounced.  Its not like one side gets to say despite your objections, too damn bad, they are staying.

Jarmo, do you completely dismiss the idea that Axl perhaps should have gone back to Paul and told him it just wasn't going to work out?

I ask because you seem to imply that if Slash could not produce someone, Paul then gets the spot by default?  Do you not see how his inclusion was toxic?

There was obviously more to the story, but Paul?s inclusion appears to have been the tipping point.
The nail in the coffin of the UYI era.

Paul Huge or Slash?

I?d like to think Axl would take a do-over on that one, given the chance.

I have my copy of Chinese Democracy and that alone tells me it did work out.....
So I'm not sure what you're trying to say?


If we're only talking about Sympathy For The Devil and its recording, and nothing that happened after. From Axl's point of view, it worked. If it sounded crap, do you think it would've been released? They got the song recorded and it was released..... In that sense it worked.

Now all the drama involved. Maybe he didn't see that it was gonna pan out that way? Other stuff might have been bigger issues. Like them rejecting Slash's songs for example?


And yeah, I do see it somewhat like that.
If you're replacing a player in the team, and somebody is brought in, and you disagree with it, that's fine. But not constructive. Playing with one less player isn't an option, so then what?

Maybe a better way of dealing with is would be: No, I don't agree. But how about this guy?


It wasn't the first time Axl brought in a friend from Indiana to appear on a GN'R track....


/jarmo

Not well handled by Axl. It's not about whether Pauls addiotional playing was recorded secretly at 4 a.m. It's just about bringing a new guy in with whom an important member of the band didn't want to work with. plus, letting him play on an recorded song without telling the main axeman. yeah, Slash was not around, but you can not expect him to be around 24/7. they even got phones back than.

Slash tried out with Zakk but he was an undenialble a leadplayer himself. it's no wonder that didn't work out.
Slash kinda tried out Dave Navarro but he didn't even appear at rehearsals due to drug abuse and/or lack of interest.
Slashs suggestion was GILBY. Axl didn't see it that way --> Gilby was gone. same should've applied to Paul.

point is, if you can not agree on someone you've got to continue the search. It's not that bog of an issue to let Slash play all the guitars for ONE song.

But don't you think I'm not critical about Slash. while rading his book I got the impression that he wasn't/isn't really aware of how annoying his drug/alcohol abuse might have bothered Axl. Saying "at least I was a functioning addict" is half the truth, even though an important factor.

Well...haha.  I'm sure not saying that.  That an album I got a mere 15 years later shows it all worked out.

No, what I was saying was that it was obvious that Axl wanted Paul in the fold.  Slash did not.

What I am asking, is after making his pitch, and even then arguing the point some, how at that point do you not go back to your buddy Paul and say its just not going to work out?  And he has to respect Slash's opinion just as he would expect Slash to expect his, roles reversed.

You sort of seem like you are saying Axl is under no obligation to do such a thing.

Spot on.  That's how I see it.

Bits in bold especially.

Slash made little effort...

he wrote an whole record! doesn't matter if you think it sucked or not
he recorded SFTD (even though he wasN#t fond of covering the song) to bring the whole band back to work

but yeah, he most probably wasn't on good speaking terms during that time. talking didn't seem to be their area of expertise.

It's obvious Axl wanted someone in the fold instead of "dunno".

I didn't say no obligation. I merely pointed out the fact that the song was released so in that sense it seems like Axl was happy enough with it to release it. So Paul did what Axl wanted.

What you're saying is that after the song was done, Axl should've gone: Well, the song came out how I had planned, your playing sounds great, I wanna write songs with you for the next album, we have nobody else to take this spot, but since Slash hates, bye....

Look at it from that perspective and it makes less sense. The only sense it makes is if your idea of making sense is to do what Slash wanted...  ;)




/jarmo

I'm actually saying the song should never have been done that way and that Paul should have been on it in any capacity.  It was totally inappropriate, the way it was handled.

You are arguing what's done after he pulls that bush league move.  I'm arguing the bush league move should have never occurred.

So you think that even after you've thought about all the other stuff?

What I'm trying to say is, there's a lot more to the story than "Axl secretly masterminded this coup to have his friend Paul erase Slash's guitar parts and record them himself in the secret hidden studio in the middle of a school night so nobody would notice" scenario.

So, if you take into account all the things that happened, what was going on and so on, then suddenly the whole thing might not seem like the doomsday event it's been portrayed as?

I'll give you an example. Which do you think would be a bigger blow for a songwriting lead guitar player in an unnamed band: Having your songs rejected or not having the say on who plays rhythm guitar on a cover song for a movie you hate?



Yes, you're saying it shouldn't have happened and they should've just kept going on without any idea of who might take the spot vacated by Gilby's departure from the group.
I'm saying that wasn't possible so you choose something else to get it done.

Ironic that you're here proclaiming not doing something should've been the right thing to do!
"Serious People Find Ways To Get Things Done.  Unserious People Find Excuses Why They Can't.  Results Determine Which You Are."

Axl found a way to get it done.  :D




/jarmo

Fortunately, I saw this coming, hours ago :



I think it misses the point to focus on how exactly Paul wound up there when the reality is that he should not be on there under any circumstances.

As for the rest of your post, this was one song on a soundtrack.  It was not the entire future of the band here. 

And as was pointed out by someone a few posts ago, Slash can't be the lone guitarist on one cover song on a soundtrack?  Of course he could.  No one is saying that was the recipe for the band's future.

I think this one is about as cut and dry as they come.
Slash didn?t like Paul. Duff didn?t like Paul. Matt didn?t like Paul. That?s 3 reason why he shouldn?t have been involved.

Guns N? Roses at the time had one of rock?s greatest guitarists at their disposal in Slash.
Paul wasn?t exactly a virtuoso. Take away his contributions to Sympathy, or for that matter Guns N? Roses altogether, and they are no less successful.

No reason Slash couldn?t have done what Paul brought to the table on Sympathy for the Devil.
No reason to think he couldn?t have done it better. There was no reason to bring anyone else into the fold for one song.

Again, maybe Axl didn?t realize he was essentially slapping his bandmates in the face by including Paul against their wishes, but that?s exactly what he did.

This is what I could never grasp.

Paul was just SO great, just SO essential, that if bringing him into the fold implodes the band, well...that's how the cookie crumbles.

Insane "logic", right there.

must say I agree....a cover song on a soundtrack? Cobbled together piecemeal. Last I checked, Led Zep did alright with one guitar player, bass, drums, and vocals. It was a hot mess then no matter what angle you take.  :-[

Like someone said before, it was the sound of a great band falling apart. It still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Just being honest.

I think it misses the point of a discussion when you're not even remotely interested in having one.
Yeah, good job. you already figured out hours ago that I'd ask you questions and try to make you think beyond the "this is what I think and I don't need to take anything else into account" routine.

You: It shouldn't have happened. End of story.
Me: It happened, and here's things that might have played a role in why it did.
You: No, those are just deflections because you don't wanna talk about the fact that it shouldn't have happened.
Me: Yes, you can dwell on the fact that it shouldn't have, but it did. Now, are you gonna try to discuss it past the point of "I don't wanna talk about it because it shouldn't have happened"?
You: It shouldn't have happened! It was wrong!
Me: Riiight.... So anyway....

 :hihi:




No, you made it seem like it was a big deal and I pointed out that maybe it wasn't. It's all relative.
Also, are you saying the two guitar band should've been a one guitar band because that's what Slash preferred? What's next, him writing all the lyrics too?





Do you think any of these feelings were based on anything other than "he can't play"?
Do you think it was more about the fact that they had no other suggestions and that he was Axl's idea? Axl's idea = bad.
Also, do you think Duff siding with Slash could have anything to do with him trying to keep the peace in the band? He had already sided with Axl on the songs Slash had written, so with that in mind, is it possible he was kinda gonna go with Slash on this issue to please Slash? Is that possible? I know, it's a hypothetical question. Don't have any evidence to back it up. But neither do those who posted about guitar tracks being erased so.... :)




You believe that the band broke up because of this cover song and the rhythm guitar player on it?


Maybe i wouldn't ask this if you had answered my question to you already. So let's try again. Which do you think would be a bigger blow for a songwriting lead guitar player in an unnamed band: Having your songs rejected or not having the say on who plays rhythm guitar on a cover song for a movie you hate?


By the way, sometimes I put, or at least try to, some thought into my posts. So when you just choose to focus on one sentence and ignore the rest, it kinda goes against the whole idea about being a person who's interested in discussions.....

Am I typing in invisible letters? Maybe that's it. Maybe I need to make my posts red so they get noticed.....  ???



/jarmo

Agreed all around.

Really wish I didn't like it so much.  This thread really reminded me how often I listen to it, which is a lot.

I'm just being honest, as I've been form the jump first thing this morning, with both you and Emily.

If you are under the impression there is a "well, hear me out" and/or "if you think about it" rationale that will eventually lead me over to your side that its totally cool Axl sandbagged his entire band with this nonsense, its just not going to happen.

Dick move and a bad idea.  Was then, is now, forever and ever....amen.

Not every conversation is going to end with a miraculous conversion by one of the parties.  In fact, I think very few do.

Often, even after hashing it out, there is a baseline that does not change.  At best, you might see the other person's point. 

No.

As someone said upthread, this becomes a straw that broke the camel's back type of situation.

Axl was already well off the reservation by 1994 in terms of relating to his own band.  Travelled alone, spent less and less time with them offstage, etc.

Here you wind up with a situation where he showed just about zero regard to how his power play was going to go over with his band, who he was treating like his employees with this move.

It was a move that showed he truly gave no fucks what the others thought, because as had been pointed out several times now, they ALL hated Paul.  Too fucking bad, says Axl. 

Its at that point, you start to really question what you are even doing anymore.  And the exodus begins.

Probably the former. 

But the latter shows how little your opinion truly matters to self deputized boss of what was up until then, a collaborative band.

And since it was the latter that was the final straw, I'd say that was a bigger deal than the former.

I know you think that's what you are doing.

But a lot of time, this "thought" you are putting into your posts tend to be more along the lines of protecting Axl at all times.

So if I gloss over something, its not that I don't see its what you are going for.  I just don't share your, at times, apologist mentality.  Its not paramount to me.

Not every conversation has to end "...and that why you can't really blame Axl, if you think about it."

Sometimes, you can.

I suppose your scenario could be possible. Who knows.
Regardless, I think the simple fact that anyone in the band, in this case Slash, wasn?t comfortable with his inclusion, in a perfect world should have been enough.
Ideally, if they really felt they needed to have a rhythm guitarist in place to record SFTD, they would have collectively searched until they found a player they could agree upon.

I think Slash's substance problems were a major part of the issue.

That said, Do you think its possible that that GN'R  was ruined when Slash refused to work with Paul Tobias and do you think it could have been great if had worked with Paul?

Somehow Paul has turned into some kind of villain and hack but listening to Sympathy For The Devil, it really makes me interested in what that GN'R album would have been like had Paul been included, not as an official member or Izzy replacement, but as an official songwriter/producer?

 I think SFTD kicks ass, and I don't hear the bad guitar work people claim is there from Paul. I think he does compliment Slash pretty damn well on it. And considering that Paul was involved in some of the best songs off of CD, couldn't he have brought something really special to those recordings?

It sounds to me Paul was nixed because Slash and Duff didn't like him. None of them have to like each other, and they didn't.

During that time, all that would have needed to happen is for Paul to have jammed some ideas with Slash and I guess he and Duff didn't want to do that.

Paul ended up writing with Mother Goose and Dizzy and made some pretty incredible stuff so I don't see how it was just: "this guy sucks, he can't play and he can't write" when he's shown that isn't true.

Also-

Axl:
"The public gets a different story from the other guys ? Slash, Duff, Matt ? who have their own agendas. The original intentions between Paul and myself were that Paul was going to help me for as long as it took to get this thing together in whatever capacity that he could help me in. So when he first was brought into this, he was brought in as a writer to work with Slash."

maybe, yes, had Slash given in so to say....yeah, they may have ended up alright when songs like Catcher, TWAT, IRS, The Blues etc eventually sprung up...all could have been classic era Gnr tracks. Can't cry over spilt Milkboy! What is done is done...can't erase the past. :no:

Emily, the problem with Axl's comment is that they obviously did not like him...you have to get along on some level. Honestly, I don't think Tommy got along with him at first either.

Another source says there's tension between him and Stinson because Huge "has the whole Guns attitude but he's never toured"....Spin 1999

I don't consider myself that naive and/or stupid to even think you'd change your mind on anything you've made up your mind about decades ago. Don't worry!





And I think he might have gotten over it if he didn't choose to quit soon after. Then it became a bigger deal and yet another reason for why he possibly couldn't stay in GN'R. I mean, imagine if that hadn't been the last recording/released... It might've been a like footnote in the history between "TSI??" and whatever came next....






That's one side of the story, where you just run with the evil Axl theory.
You failed to mention drug problems, Duff getting sober, nearly dying, Slash having his songs rejected, nobody else offering any suggestions and so on...




Protecting? Haha.
I'm posting what I think. You're not the only one who can think. Or at least claim to.

You don't share my "apologist mentality"? What kind of weak shit is that?
I present a point and instead of addressing it you ignore it. Because of my "apologetic mentality"? Please.

I don't share your ________ mentality but I still can address the points you bring up, even if they're pulled out of thin air with nothing to back them up....

Like i said, so much for claiming to be interested in discussions.





Well he didn't wanna work with him. He didn't wanna write with him.
So in a way, Axl had him on the track and it got the track done and it gave everybody a way to hear how those two sounded together (and obviously it gave Slash one more reason to be angry).

Yes, in a perfect world they would've found someone they could've agreed on. But this was a soundtrack song. Chances are there were deadlines to be met...

Also, who did Axl suggest to replace Izzy? Dave Navarro. Didn't happen. Which made Slash happy so he got Gilby instead.... Maybe Axl thought Slash's choice wasn't the best... Worked for a tour, but then he was let go. Slash's choice might've proved to Axl that Slash didn't agree on guitar players and whoever Slash wanted might be "just another Gilby" (not trying to offend or disrespect anyone, just a way of speaking here)?





/jarmo

Wouldn't you assume this was the plan?  I sure would.

 



Preach it, sister. 

As you can see, I'm right with you.

I don't deny any of them though.  Has that happened?

What has happened, is that I've explained that I don't see how they affect what Axl did.

Paul Huge is not on that track because Slash was on drugs, Duff was a drunk, Slash havings songs rejected, nor not having a name on the spot for a replacment.

I think that's a tremendous reach. 

If that is your opinion, I do not share it.

Duff wasn't a drunk at that point. He had just gotten sober after nearly dying!


I didn't say those were the reasons for Paul being on the track.

I'm trying to explain to you the whole situation.

I'll try again.
Drug problem: Might make your priorities different? Might make those around you look at you differently and take you less seriously?
Having song rejected: Might make you angry, bitter, resentful? That could later on affect your decisions on unrelated matters?
Not having any suggestions for guitarist: Might make it look like you're not even trying and you're just saying no out of spite?


So in essence, what I'm telling you that some of those MIGHT have been reason(s) for the decisions made at the time.
Not saying they're the main reason(s) or only one(s).

I've also posted more possible reasons in an earlier post.
A lot of free thinking tonight... Phew!


/jarmo

Could be.

Another factor, might just be that Axl decided he wanted him on there, and that was that.

Think?  In the mix, at least?? 

It's at least in the mix, I think.

I think Axl wanted him there, there was nobody else around and he probably knew Paul would work since they already knew each other. That's what I think.

What was the alternative do you think? Do you think not recording the song he wanted to record was one? Or do you think that letting Slash decide who plays on the track that he himself didn't even wanna do would've been the thing to do? Maybe you're thinking that Slash should've picked who plays guitar like he did in 1991 when he chose Gilby?

Oh, and do you think the others would've hated Paul less if he wasn't Axl's friend?





/jarmo

Do you think that Axl knew what they all thought of him?

Do you think that sounded like a salvageable situation?

Do you think if your 2 senior partners, at at least one other junior member aren't onboard, you should re-think your plan?



I think as has been already stated that if they could not agree on a guy, Slash does both parts.

I think this was a random cover song on a soundtrack.  I don't think this was necessarily the same way they would continue their future as a band.

I think know that I've already said all of these things already.



Oh, this is just pity party stuff.  Come on now.

Was this one serious?

alright...bedtime? :hihi:

D-Gen, here is the problem you have playing cards with Jarmo. He has pocket Kings from the start and you have a Jack and a Queen. I would imagine he could tell you quite a bit more about the ins and outs of what has happened....real facts. However, out of loyalty he is going to withhold his cards. Even when the truth comes out about certain things and you have to fold, he isn't going to show you what he had. Capiche?

Such is life for us common folks.  :hihi:

Two interesting Interviews with Slash about the recording of SFTD, Zakk Wylde and Paul Huge in 1995. especially the first one.

One:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7YeS7XTzlY (starts around 1:00)

Two:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFaydDs9MWI

as for Slash being bitter because his songs got rejected and him wanting to write lyrics etc....

Slash should've played both guitars. ONE song, no drama. doesn't mean he wants to write lyrics or go on as one-guitar band. do I think he might have felt bitter because his songs got rejected? seems absolutely possible. there might have been reasons that put him into a bitter, maybe even stubborn mindset at some point. yeah, Slash probably thought he was sufficient as a songwriter whereas Axl wanted another ingredient in the mix. fair enough. still, you shouldn't have put Paul Huge on the recording if people didn't want him.

I think he knew what Duff and Slash thought. Not sure if he thought it was serious or just them saying no because Paul was his friend.

I'm sure he thought about it, but considering nothing else was an option, this was it.
The bottom line is. Do people who hear the song think it sounds horrible?




So in your opinion, that's the fair solution. GN'R is a one guitar band where Slash has the say on guitar parts?





No, there's no party on school nights.

Let me rephrase the question for you. Do you think the guys' feelings about Paul were in any shape influenced by the fact that he was Axl's friend? Yes or no?

 :)



/jarmo

I think Slash playing both parts at the time was good enough....not a solution for the future of the band, but a solution at the time in order to try to avoid the pending meltdown. Hindsight is 20/20 though... :-\

Spot on. It's not an issue of whether or not Paul's contribution to the song was good enough or not for a Guns n Roses recording.


But, by all accounts, Slash, Duff and Matt were simply not on board with the decision, for a few different reasons, (common sense that it was forced on them) so was his inclusion worth the potential conflict that it inevitably caused?

As a Guns N Roses fan... I am going to say no... it was not the worth the implosion of the band at that time.

Yep, yep.

It ain't rocket science.

Excellent song though, Ozzy's version not so bad, Motorheads not so good, Janes Addiction not my cup o' tea and surprisingly Bon Jovi has a pretty good live version....

I don't think it had anything to do with the fact that he was AXL's FRIEND. Just that Axl forced the issue without their input.

But Axl had already maneuvered for the complete control over the band, doing what he thought was best for Guns N Roses. Right?

Paul or no Paul... the band was destined for the end , the day Axl forced them to sign contracts to be in Guns N Roses. I don't say that to paint Axl in a negative light, it's just the truth. Was Slash's addictions a factor? Sure. Was Izzy not involved in the writing a HUGE factor ? Sure

But those three things combined... made it inevitable. Paul was just a lightning rod to expedite the end.

No the bottom line is that Paul should not have wound up on there.

You can take as circuitous a route as you like, but you are still going to wind up at that same destination.

Yeah, nice try.

I'm curious why you only quoted that line and not the one that came right after.  Here, I'll show you :


Oh...because when you add that other line that was right there, plain as day, it invalidates the "point" you are trying to make.

Nevermind.  I withdraw the question.  I see why you didn't include it.

Hahahaha.  True, for the most part.

But here's the thing.  When it comes to message boards, I'm about conversation, not conversion.

Meaning, I don't write my posts for the benefit of the guy I'm debating.  I know he is unlikely to give any ground.

No, I write my posts for the group at large.  I make my case the best way I know how, and then allow the rest of the gang at the board to decide how it stands up.

I tend to trust its going to go my way.  If it doesn't...hey, than maybe my argument was not a strong one. 

But I'll roll those dice, every time.

Well it wasn't the LAST straw for Slash because he did hang on for another 2 years...
Also IMO Slash was being kind of a dick himself around this time.

IE: "Hey, those songs you presented me, I'm down with working on three or four...."
"They're gone."
"Gone?"
"Yup. Recorded them with this band I set up. In 2 weeks."
"2 weeks...You can't do that..."
"Yeah, you can."
"I'm just asking to work on 3 or 4."
"Look man, when I first showed them to you, you had no interest in them. Now you want them? Okay, they're finished, they have lyrics, since what you're told or fuck off."

Also, not helping Axl look for a replacement for Gilby, and then turning down every suggestion for a Gilby replacement which Axl made. We don't know when the timeline was exactly - maybe Axl threw Paul on the track as a desperate move to try to fit someone in the band because Slash had said no to everyone else he suggested.

Also, saying "No" to Axl's desire for Guns to do MTV Unplugged just wasn't cool.

I KNEW this thread was headed here as soon as I saw it.

Which is why my original post of the drama behind the song makes me dislike it, holds up.

Paul has been around for longer than most people know, he played lead in the Lafayette band AXL in '76-79. Izzy was the drummer. In the early 80's, Axl and Izzy went to LA, which resulted with Hollywood Rose et al. That's when he hooked up with Chris Weber, who sort of took Paul's place as Axl's co-writer.

Paul is credited for writing Back Off Bitch which was a demo from the appetite sessions. He was around in 87.....
He also co-wrote Shadow Of Your Love in the 80's, and he's thanked in the AFD liner notes

On the Thank Yous on AFD it says:[...] Mike Crank, Paul (let's look for planes!) Huge (Hue-gy), Tracii (L.A. -) Guns, [...]

It's not surprising he and Slash never got along because Huge would have seen things from Axls perspective,  and we all know Slash had his own "differing opinion" of things.  :hihi:

Seems it.

Axl was already getting a little wacky with some of his demands and actions by that point.

But after pulling this, it really shows the others that things had reached a tipping point.  Reassessments are then made.

I think it absolutely mattered that Paul was Axl's friend and it largely figured into the others' "dislike"

Duff- "I told Axl this was his band, he had ignored everyone and had hired his best friend for the band. I couldn't play with him. Paul Huge, that was the guy! He's a friend of Axl, he's a 'yes man'."

That was a bummer, because they are such a strong acoustic band.

As many times as I've heard bands do unplugged sets during their shows, nothing sounds quite like the Skin N' Bones tour.  Which was excellent.

That would have been really cool.

never heard the Unplugged story...is it myth or did it actually happen? quotes?

I believe I read that Slash and Duff did agree to jam with Paul, and decided he was hopeless.
Slash did agree to jam with Wylde, but didn?t think it worked for Guns. It?s not hard to understand why.
He?s an amazing talent, but he?s a lead guitarist himself, which would drastically change the dynamic and sound of Guns.

I think if anyone was going to have more say than others in regards to a new guitarist, it should have been Slash.
Not saying he should be allowed to bring anyone in against others wishes, but maybe Axl and the others should have deferred a bit to him since he was the undeniable expert in that area.

Zakk, Navarro and Paul all seem like very questionable choices from the outside looking in, so I?m sure Slash and Duff were scratching their heads.

I think Axl made a very poor decision including Paul, but you would think they all could have found common ground and moved past it had they really tried.
I think with the departures of Adler and Izzy, and Axl?s power grab, it started to feel less and less a band to Slash and Duff.
If it wasn?t this incident, it was going to be something else that sealed the implosion.

Regarding the Snakepit songs, if Slash really told Axl to shut up and sing someone else?s lyrics, than that is obviously weak.
He must have been on some really good shit to think Dover, himself or whomever was capable of writing better lyrics/melodies than Axl, especially during that time period.

Never heard about the Unplugged incident, but would have loved to have heard it.
That would have been right in their wheelhouse if Izzy were involved.

Honestly, I don't really recall it.

Matt's opinion is important because? I mean, all decisions were made by Axl, Duff and Slash weren't they?

I suspect there were conflicts even before this...



I don't know if you saw what I posted earlier. But look at the band's history up to that point.
Axl and Izzy. Izzy quits. Axl wants Dave Navarro to replace him. Slash doesn't. Slash gets "his guy" Gilby in. Axl obviously doesn't think Gilby is the guy to write with and brings in Paul. Slash is against it.

Paul isn't the only one they disagreed on.

I have no facts to back it up, but there was probably some kind of resentment besides him being "forced" on them going on at the time. I mean, it wouldn't be weird if there was considering the past.





You keep saying that. But you fail to answer questions... Like I said, you keep repeating the same stuff you could've said in 1995.




It's hard to reply to all your multiple posts sometimes. I admit it.
I don't wanna post five replies so instead I put them all in one.

Please tell me what point I was trying to make.... I'm sure it wasn't "he shouldn't have been there".






Is this why you time after time ignore questions asked?
I'm curious. Why do you take part in a conversation and then choose to ignore simple Yes/No questions?

One might suspect it's because it would "weaken your case".... I'm not gonna be bothered to ask you for a third time. I just think your act of wanting a conversation is just that, an act.





I write what I think. Unless it's news or something. But that's kinda obvious.
Replies to things I feel to comment on. I don't necessarily have a target audience in mind when I type these words.

I don't worry about all that.

Have you been able to tell me I'm wrong about the things I've posted in this thread? No.
Your answer is "he shouldn't have been there because it made poor Slash angry". Yet, what if not having him there would've made Axl angry. Not interested in that point of view?


Edited to add: The day you wake up and realize that just because somebody manages to see the other point of view doesn't make them have an "apologetic mentality" or trying to defend somebody, will be quite special! You don't seem to realize that it's quite possible other people come to other conclusions based on what they know and/or have experienced in life. For you, this doesn't exist, others are simply apologetic and are defending people. Amazing really...



/jarmo

Has anyone ever interviewed Paul Huge. I know he is like the red headed step child in the gnr family but i would be very interested in hearing how he got involved with GNR yes i know he was apparently friends with Axl but id like to hear what his thoughts were on the whole things. If anyone knows if he has please let me know because he might be more reclusive then Axl himself because if he was such a dividing force of the original lineup dont ya think interviewers would want his side of the story on things?

Even though Matt sided with Slash and Duff on Paul... It's true.. his "opinion" didn't matter. You got that one.

I think we are both "right" about this subject, there was definitely other resentments involved in everything with these two guys. Two VERY big egos bumping heads...


I just think Paul was going to be an issue , no matter how much of a "friend" he was to Axl or not. I'm sure if he blew their socks off during those rehearsals , Slash and Duff would have been more receptive to it. The guy obviously was a lightning rod that exasperated larger issues between the three men.

Both Slash and Axl resented each other for what they both perceived as the other guy trying to take too much control, so of course both were going to nix the others suggestions.

It's really all moot isn't it? No matter how much you have supported Axl over the years in his journey to carry on without them and n0 matter how much you love the record that became Chinese... was it the best result that could have happened? I would think anybody who became a fan of GNR way back when would say no...

I mean, of course it matters. Nobody needs a grumpy band member. What I meant was, in the business sense it didn't matter.





If you look from Axl's point of view, Slash had said "no" to basically every rhythm guitarist Axl had suggested since Izzy quit.
At some point you start thinking that no matter what you suggest, the answer will be "no".




The irony is that Zakk Wylde probably did that and how did that go? Slash didn't want him in the band either.
Fair enough, you could say Paul was an unknown with little experience. But that doesn't automatically mean he can't do what he was there to do.




Interesting point. Imagine if Axl had just stopped "caring" and they released multiple albums in the 1990s that were heavily influenced by Slash's way. We have Slash's albums from that time to listen to and get an idea where he was musically. So imagine GN'R releasing that kind of albums. Where would we be now then? Sure, you'd have more albums in your collection. But other than that, there'd be no reunion talk unless they decided to stop working together anyway....



/jarmo

The rhythm spot was doomed to fail no matter what... Izzy was SO IMPORTANT to every single GNR recording up until that time.

Everybody seems to agree that those Snakepit records were not up to par, but would we feel that way if they were recorded by Axl and the rest of GNR?

What if GNR went on to create something similar to Contraband? (which I love) Axl's vocal's on top of Slither and some of those riffs on that album... would have been epic.


What if Chinese and other follow ups were a blend of all these songs... wouldn't that have been sweet? Guns n Roses continuing... making music we all love.

You took one line out of a post to make it seem like I was saying that the band was going to continue on as a one guitar operation with Slash the main man.

Problem is, that post where you took that line...THE VERY NEXT LINE said that's not what I was saying.  That I was only talking about that one random cover song on a soundtrack.

So you didn't include that second line, as if no one would notice.  Or no one could read, or have any memory skills.

Took about 3 seconds to disprove.  Its all right on the last page for anyone to see.

I've gone back and forth on this.

I'd like to think the guy had at least SOME self awareness and could see this was awkward.  But I also tend to think Axl assured him it would all be alright and he'd sort it out with the other guys.

So, in that sense, I think is more about Axl than it was Paul, in terms of fault.

However, then you have Matt saying that the guy was then running Slash down afterwards.  That hurts the idea he wasn't there to step on anybody's toes.  So maybe he's not blameless.

Yet I could easily see why he doesn't talk.  How does that go well for him?

It's actually too bad Richard wasn't around in 94-95, Slash is supposedly a fan right?

Yeah, what might have been, huh?

I guess more of the question is if anybody has ever tried talking to him. Again i'd love to get his back story and learn more about who he is how he met axl maybe he has mentioned that somewhere before i don't know. I understand the guy is not going to go into the underbelly of gnr and talk about those ugly times but could shed some light on the mood at the time. These guys are adults they should be able to handle themselves when it comes to hard questions

Paul co wrote TWAT, Catcher, Prostitute, SOD, IRS, Riad, Oh My God, and Chinese Democracy...8 of the 15 new Gnr tracks....not to mention probably a bunch of others we haven't heard....to say he was "hopeless" is just being a dick when 3 years later he is contributing to some pretty good songs. 2 sides of the fence here. I can see both sides of the argument.  :P

Absolutely not disputing his contributions to what became of the next GNR record. Some of those songs... I really love.

Not the issue at hand.

kinda of an issue as it shows how close minded Slash was when it came to people he played with. Let's be honest, he is a bit of a control freak himself. Nobody was good enough for him at the time unless it was one of his yes men...which is what Gilby was.

Like I said, if it was that hard to find middle ground, then just roll with Slash, Ax, Matt, Duff and Dizzy for a f'n cover song!!!!!

I agree with all that...

Look Slash wanted Gilby... Axl didn't... neither was going to budge. I just don't fall in the camp that they should have forged ahead with Paul just because there was no other suggestion from Slash.

I see that point.  And I agree that (eventually) we did get to see Paul was not just some hack.

But that doesn't mean he fit into GNR circa 1994.  Some of the CD songs you listed are very good songs, in my opinion.  Not terribly congruent with what GNR had been about in 1994, though.  Just because a guy can prove he has talent, doesn't mean he's a great fit for every band.

Think of it like sports.  A true back to the basket big man can have all the talent in the world.  But if you are going to try and shoehorn him onto a fast breaking team that flies up and down the court, he's a bad fit.

Paul was a bad fit for that band, at that time.  Maybe in more ways than one.

Totally agree.  Goes both ways too.

Let's flip this around.  Suppose it was Axl that heard the finished product and heard Gilby on there.  And when he asked Slash what the hell happened, Slash tells him that he couldn't wait for Axl to make up his god damn mind, so he just went ahead with Gilby on his own say so.

Well, that's also wrong.  Its not fair to Axl.

Its about mutual respect.  Its not yet another "Axl as victim" scenario.

That is actually very well said.

Paul was simply not a fit for that band and at that time.

how did the Gilby departure actually go down? band decision?

Dave Navarro didn't show up at rehearsals. Slash was giving it a try.
Slash didn't want Paul.
Slash did Zakk Wylde give a try but a twin-lead guitar approach wasn?t going to work. comprehensible decision. can't imagine Zakk Wylde being satisfied with playing nothing but rhythym guitar :hihi: Slash had every right to lay claim on the sole lead-guitar position.

which further guitarists did Axl suggest?

There's more to it than just the quality. According to Axl, Slash wasn't interested in pushing himself. I think that was the idea.

Contraband came out in 2004, after Slash had decided that Snakepit wasn't working after all... Would it have happened if he was still into Snakepit in like 2002?
Who knows. Anyway, VR imploded as well... And it had nothing to do with Axl or who he wanted to play guitar. ;)

Anyway, do you feel like if GN'R had stayed together, they would've tried making a more modern album in the 200s after making those "Slash albums" in the 1990s? Or just continue on the same path....






No, I asked you if it was fair to do that on one track considering Axl wanted two guitars.
Also, since there was so much animosity regarding the situation, do you think it would've gotten better if Slash was the sole guitar player on the track?
That was my whole point.

Your answer is "Slash should've done everything" and what's the result? Didn't think about that yet?





Valid point. He was there to help create new material. He gets shit for playing on a cover song. Kinda misses the big picture, but that's not surprising. :)




How could he give it a try when they didn't rehearse? ;)
Imagine if he had showed up. Chances are it would've been the same situation as with Zakk, or even Paul.



/jarmo

It was always my understanding that they saw him as a tour fill-in and not much more.

The Chinese Whispers site has quotes from both Axl and Slash saying they didn't see him as a full time guy.

I suspect we'd have wound up with an album that sounded more in line with the GNR sound we knew and loved.

I'm not going as far as to say it was going to be AFD II or UYI III.  But I do feel pretty confident saying there would not be anything like 'Rhiad & The Bedouins' on there either.

I also pretty strongly suspect it would have come out before November 2008.

I really struggle to see how things could have gone worse. 

What the hell is worse than a total band implosion and no new album for 15 years?  Getting involved in a land war in Asia?

After the Paul debacle, Slash bounced.  Slash may still have wound up bouncing down the line, but there likely would have been more a good faith effort to do a new album with the line-up at the time if Paul was not forced into the mix as he was.

I don't know if you understood what I was talking about. I used the fact that Slash released two Snakepit albums before his other band started as a hypothetical scenario where GN'R would've released two albums that were based on Slash's ideas and whether or not that would've been followed by a more modern sounding album like the one he did with VR...

Regarding your dig at GN'R, I strongly suspect you would've still had something to complain about. :D  :P






Well, maybe no soundtrack song. Axl gets more annoyed by Slash, Slash leaves to go do Snakepit anyway. Comes back and quits.
Like you said, it might have happened anyway.... So there really isn't a strong case for "it couldn't get worse" now is there? :)

Considering how frustrated they were in VR looking for a singer, imagine that same situation in 1995 looking for a rhythm guitar player they could agree on.
They were still disagreeing about a lot of stuff. I think before they could've agreed on something, Slash would've gone to make a second Snakepit album since that was his band and he was calling all the shots.



/jarmo

This supposes that these 2 GNR albums would be the same half ass products that Snakepit were.  I don't believe that. 

I sure don't believe Axl would just sit in the back and let Slash run the show and just sing whatever pedestrian rock songs were given to him.

I have to think Axl would be involved in the creative process and we would have been looking at something better than those Snakepit albums.

I think the band would have evolved naturally along the way by the time that 3rd hypothetical album came along.

Maybe.

I just don't think he was as about calling the shots himself as much as he was anti-inactivity and lack of professionalism he was getting from Axl.

He says that straight up in his book.  I know we are supposed to cast suspicious glances at certain passages in that book, as is our duty as loyal fans.  But given the way he has remained busy since leaving GNR, as well as not continuing with singers that showed themselves to be either uncommitted or unprofessional, his stance in that book seems accurate to me.

Slash is the greatest guitar player Axl has ever worked with. When you consider what GnR is, what they represent, and the core of their sound throughout their history, Slash is perfect.

had the band stayed together, Axl would have taken slash's blues based riffs and turned them into something magical. Axl would have presented his ideas for songs to Slash, and challenged him to come up with something that fits. Axl would have continued to lead the way in evolving GnR's sound (as he did with UYI and CD) by including other influences.

it's so easy to sit here criticize slash's songs, but i happen to think throughout his career he has done some amazing stuff. and Axl would have shaped alot of it into better songs. Axl brings out the best of Slash - SCOM riff being the perfect example. who knows what would have happened if Slash gave his ideas to Axl instead of other band members working for Slash (or Scott Weiand). could have had the next classic GnR song that lives on forever. sad to say, but there are no CD songs that generations will be listening to for years to come.    

so essentially, had the band stayed together, GnR would have solidified themselves as the Rolling Stones/Led Zeppelin of my generation. They would have continued on as one of the biggest and greatest bands of all time.

The whole hypothesis was based on Axl giving in to Slash's ideas and going along for the sake of keeping him in the band and somewhat happy.
There'd be no epic songs, obviously.

"I was specifically told no lyrics, no melodies, no changes to anything and to sing what I was told or fuck off." - Axl





You don't? His other band featuring a front man with his own ideas, imploded as well.

I don't disagree with him wanting to work, to do something. But there were things going on in GN'R and he wasn't into it. So in a way, as long as he could call the shots, he'd do it. When it was Axl's ideas, it wasn't as interesting.



Nobody's debating that.
But it seems like that wasn't how it was playing out in the mid-90s.



/jarmo

It's come up a few times now, so I have to ask :

Did any of you really dig the Snakepit stuff?  More specifically, did you continue to listen to it after the initial releases?

I'll be honest, I never did.  I was so unimpressed, that first album actually convinced me that Slash would never leave GNR if that was all he could swing.

The VR stuff, I liked, for the most part.  Slash's solo albums have some good stuff.  I just never got into Snakepit.

I'm in a similar boat. Didn't care for Snakepit. LOVE Velvet Revolver (more so Contraband). Really enjoy the Conspirators. The song Anastasia just sounds like the perfect GNR track.

Yeah, I find myself listening to Slash tracks and figuring out what songs would work with Axl singing.

I feel like a child of divorce.

When Axl said that he was basically told to "Sing what we tell you and shut up", was he referring to the Snakepit demos?  As in, did Slash basically tell him these are the tracks and I'm not changing a damn thing, now put words to them...or don't?

Eric Dover's vocals are absolute dog shit in my opinion, and some of the lyrics on that album are laughable "Aren't you naked without pride? LET ME TURN YOU OOOONNN!!!" Gimme a fuckin' break. Sounds like something you'd expect from Ratt in 1984.

VR was a definite improvement, but I rarely go back and listen to that.  Dude shoulda hung out, swallowed his pride, and let Axl mess with his '94 demos.

That's what I always said about Snakepit.

It was dogshit for a genre that, frankly, is mostly dogshit.  Yet one I liked!! 

But I even I rolled my eyes.  And I'm a guy that could go chapter and verse on Twisted Sister tunes.

Looking at it in retrospect, it seems like the first Snakepit album was just as much done as an F-You to Axl as much as it was an "artist release" for Slash.  Like, "You're not gonna use them? Fine.  I'll put them out anyway!" No wonder things went so far south in '95.  After a move like that, you can almost see why Axl freaked and did those legal gymnastics with the GNR name that effectively turned Slash & Duff into employees on December 31, 1995....Almost.  :hihi:

Seems like there was a lot of "tit for tat" going on with these two in the mid-90s, that ultimately just spiraled out of control until the inevitable happened. Difference is, Axl stayed more or less quiet in the media, whereas Slash had no quelms venting on MTV.

"We do what we do the best that anybody does. Let's just go out and do a club tour, a theatre tour, and fucking get back down to where we have some validity with an audience that we can relate to. But Axl was all fucking.. he wants to be on MTV, he wants to do Unplugged, he wants to be this, he wants to be that. So we didn't see eye to eye, and that's where a lot of that bullshit got started, and of course it was blown out of all proportion in the press" - Slash, 11/95

I think there's a few really strong tracks on the first Snakepit, yes, and I think the second Snakepit record is the best thing Slash has done post GN'R. I don't think Slash does well with the 'modern rock' sound and have never liked Scott Weiland's voice, so have never been into VR. Slash, for me, is at his best when he's doing bluesy Aerosmith style rock. I can honestly see Axl on some of the first Snakepit songs.

Fun little quote from Slash about Snakepit and Axl:
"[The instrumental Jizz da Pit] was a riff I'd been carrying around that Axl hated. He called it 'red neck'. He hated it, so I never did anything with it." (Slash, Metal Edge Magazine, 04/95)"

I think I got lost in translation. Slash was willing to give Dave Navarro a try. 2 to 3 times. but he never showed up. I don't know what would've happened.

I absolutely dig Snakepit II. great riffs and songs. with Axl on top of them, there would have been some great rock n roll songs in the vein of Guns N Roses. I think people lack fantasy to imagine how great these songs could've sounded with Axl. it's not generic. Been There Lately (ballsy and dirty riff!), The Truth, Serial Killer (solo!), Ain't Life Grand (solo!), Back to the Moment (solo!). DIFFERENT songs, awesome solos. of course the epic stuff is Axls thing. Rock n Roll songs are Slash thing. that's why they sound so damn well together. each can make use of his strengths.

Snakepit I has a jam-vibe to it. I understand that many people don't dig it. it's not packed with catchy, poppy hooklines. you really have to listen to it a few times.

VR sounded more modern but from a musical point of view it wasn't too impressive. and I've got to admit that Scott has not the vocalpower to complement VRs music. on more mellow songs he sounded great though (Fall to Pieces, Loving The Aliens, You Got No Right). Slash pretty much reduced his singlenote-riffing which made him great in GNR and Snakepit. missed it on both records.

No, I understood what you said.
Considering he was against the idea, chances are he would've gone with a "no" as his answer if Dave had actually managed to show up....



/jarmo

problem was and still is Axl & Slash relationship IMO.

between two real friends, it would not have been so problematic to record Sympathy with Gilby
who is a hardcore Stones fan, then bringing a new guy without rushing things for the next album.

5 o clock somewhere is OK. Aint Life Grand is fucvking awesome. Contraband is better than 5 o clock. Libertad is pretty shitty.  SLASH has some nice songs and some dull ones. Hate MKs voice so I don't like the conspirators stuff.

Beggars and Hangers On, Lower and Serial are 3 really good songs as is.
Input from Axl and Izzy could very well have elevated them to great.

Whereas Axl wrote some timeless lyrics, what Dover, Jackson and Myles wrote are mostly forgettable.
As a result, the shelf life of Slash?s post Guns body of work suffers.

He hasn?t worked with a lyricist as talented as Axl, or songwriter as talented as Izzy on a consistent basis since Guns.
Just like Axl hasn?t worked with guitarists as talented as Slash and Izzy since they left. The chemistry those guys had can?t be replicated with just anyone.

They are all very talented in there own rights, but their post AFD-UYI output is uneven and it?s not difficult to see why.

sorry for quoting myself but Gilby recently answered the question;

Regarding how his journey with GUNS N' ROSES ended, Clarke said: "Well, [it was] really simple. Axl [Rose, GUNS N' ROSES lead singer] one day just wanted to change things up. I honestly didn't know what he wanted to do. He never talked to me directly; I always dealt with Slash. There was one week I was in the band and then the next week he was just pissed off with something. And finally one day the checks stopped coming. That's how it all ended."

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/gilby-clarke-on-his-exit-from-guns-n-roses-one-day-the-checks-stopped-coming/

Not exactly-

"Then, in turn, [Gilby] had words with Duff. And that sort of cemented the, you know, the relationship, the departure. Whatever you wanna call it." (Slash, Canadian Radio, 04/20/95)

What happened was we were rehearsing and Gilby was really out of it one day. The morale of the band, we were all trying to keep it together and he was the odd man out that day. I was complaining and then Axl called me that same night." (Slash, Metal Edge Magazine, 04/95)

"There were days when Axl would call Slash and go, "Fire Gilby - he doesn't fit in with my plan," but he would never tell me. That was going on for a long time." (Gilby, Daily Trojan, 04/14/99)

"[Axl] said he didn't want to work with Gilby anymore for a lot of different reasons. In a way I sort of went along with it, at least Axl thought I was going along with it because I had my own complaints from that night at rehearsal. This was about a year ago." (Slash, Metal Edge Magazine, 04/95)

And when Slash 'sort of went along' with it...

"'As you are aware, Gilby has been fired at least three times by the band in the past month and has been rehired at least two times,' Clarke's lawyer Jeffrey Light wrote in an April 14th, 1994 letter to GN'R lawyer Laurie Soriano." (Rolling Stone, 05/11/00)

And so, I told Gilby that that was going on. So he didn't hear it from somewhere else. Because if you know, in this business, leaks are like crazy. And it's just best to be upfront and honest about thing. So I told him what was going on." (Slash, Canadian Radio, 04/20/95)

My last conversation with [Axl] was when he called me and was trying to explain what he wanted to do. And, basically, it was: I want to change the sound of the band. You know, I want to go more into a current direction. You know, I want to use, you know, more industrial type things. You know, he was really into bands like Jane's Addiction, Pearl Jam and Nine Inch Nails. And I just kinda laughed and said: You know, look - I want to play guitar in a loud version of The Rolling Stones, you know?" (Gilby, Spin, 07/99)

I contributed a lot [to the Snakepit]... [Axl] didn't like what we were all doing." (Gilby, Kerrang, 05/24/94)

Usually, I'm at Slash's every night. We work on new material and different things, whether it's my stuff, his stuff or whatever. He's got a studio in his house. We're working on some stuff right now - me, him and Matt. GN'R's not gonna do anything, so we just go up to Slash's place and work." (Gilby, Kerrang, 05/24/94)

been digging this today....actually bought it on ITUNES.... :peace:

I can't help but think Axl should've gone industrial on a solo project and shouldn't have tried to change GNR that much. Im not saying GNR should've been like AC/DC keeping the same sound for decades. But more like Gilby said, A loud rolling stones, and the rolling stones really did everything, some songs sound like jazz, disco, funk, but they always kept it rock n roll.

I disagree, I appreciate the vision Axl has employed for GNR- I'm glad the sound evolved and that there aren't an array of repeat AFD's in the catalogue.

Me too. All great artists evolve

Can jarmo tell me whether Emily and sweet child of dexter are the same poster? Both females and Sweetchild of dexter always comes to say I agree after emily  :hihi:

I agree.

Wait, does it make you and me the same person?  :hihi:



/jarmo

Btw, I agree to an extent, If you read my original post. And maybe I would've fully agreed if there actually was an evolution, but Chinese democracy is just one album, there's no evolution in a single act, one output.

There's more evolution from AFD TSI than from those albums to CHinese Democracy, if there was more albums since CHIDEM maybe that would've been different, but there isnt.

I asked a question, I did not state anything :P

You stated that they post after each other... ;)

 :hihi:



/jarmo

They do. That's a fact.  :P

I just think Emily makes some really good points. Woody how could you ever forget the girl who drove you insane with all those posts 7 years ago about This I Love being in a Twilight movie? I had a different screen name back then, I was Annie.

Guess I'm you too now.

What a silly question. :D

Hhaha, that's true  ;D

Besides Emily is clearly a no nonsense kind of poster. Whereas i can best be described as Elle Woods. :hihi: