Slash The Liar?

[pilferk]

And the money is not astronomical, even if the performer decides to go over.? It's not like it's a "fine", in the sense that it's illegal, in most places.

Tom Zutaut confirmed that the band was paying (as I said) hundreds of thousands of dollars in curfew violation fees during the UYI tour.? That doesn't sound like it could be the result of the mild "contractual clauses" you're talking about.

Actually, it would be exactly what he's talking about....and, if it were every venue (and, given GnR's penchant for being late, it probably was), it COULD rack up to an amount that high (it's usually based on some sort of hourly "fee").  But, in the grand scheme of things, on a venue by venue basis, the amount, all things considered, isn't that outrageous.  I know at the Colliseum in New Haven, it was ABOUT 4k to 5k an hour (or part of an hour), back when I was working there.  Larger venues usually charge more.  Over the course of a whole tour, that could add up quick..but it's not a "fine" or a "curfew" as most people think of it.  I just wanted to provide a bit more info on the subject, because, when most people talk about this, they assume it's some sort of "legal" thing...and it's not, technically.

1) Chinese Democracy
2) The Blues
3) Riyhad and the Bedouins
4) Silkworms
5) Madagascar
6) IRS

That's more than a few songs that WE'VE heard.

That example doesn't hold water.? just because 5 of those 6 songs have been performed live does not mean they've been completed in the studio.

And you don't think it's a bit obtuse to suggest they're not done, given we've heard them?  I mean, lets be realistic here and not put blinders on simply to try to support our position.  If Axl's singing them, they have lyrics....they might not be COMPLETE/COMPLETE, but that's not what he said.

[dave-gnfnr2k]

There you go again, instead of answering a simple question you resport to a personal attack, which inturn shows you know? you have lost and cant come up with a legit answer good work mate?

jeez.. lighten up a little Dave
bitter and defeated is never a good look for you - try to be a bit more humble in defeat next time please. thanks

How am I better or defeated? Have you even read what Me, JV or Jarmo have said to you? I guess not. T? You have been owned in this thread, who are you trying to fool? he only person you are fooling by comments is yourself.

owned? I think not my boy - just because a couple of blind Axl-zealots have jumped all over statements ive made that the rationally thinking people of the world would agree with does not the winning of an argument maketh.

You have not given any proof at all, when three or four people in this thread have given you examples.

[the dirt]

And you don't think it's a bit obtuse to suggest they're not done, given we've heard them?? ?If Axl's singing them, they have lyrics..

So they have lyrics, so what?? See my previous example.? Several UYI songs were performed between 1986-1988, does that mean they were complete?? They weren't complete until they were formally recorded and went through the final mix in 1991.

We've heard preliminary bootleg versions of Axl's new songs.? Hell, "Madagascar" changed between the time it was first played and the December 2001 Vegas shows, so there's one example right there of how a song can be played but not yet complete.

And for hells sake, those songs are four years old now!? god only knows what Axl couldve done to them since they were last played live.

As far as lyrics go, (to use another band as an example) ever heard a song called "Louder than Hell" by Motley Crue?? It was originally "Hotter than Hell", with slightly different lyrics.? They played the early version live in 1984 before altering it for the Theater of Pain album in 1985.? Just an example of how a live version is not necessarily a completed version.

? I mean, lets be realistic here and not put blinders on simply to try to support our position.

Who was doing that?

How many people out there beleived Oh My God was a completed tune when it was included on the End of Days sountrack?
Everybody.
Then way later, according to Axl, it was only a demo or something ...

[ppbebe]

How many people out there beleived Oh My God was a completed tune when it was included on the End of Days sountrack?
Everybody.
Then way later, according to Axl, it was only a demo or something ...

Since I read the article first....


Anyway on topic, if Axl said that, he meant Slash had lied to him so many times or betrayed him and not us. IMO.
I don't think bsing about oneself to others would deeply hurt ones friend.

[GNRisSLASH]

I thought this was about Slash the liar.

VR came on stage around 9:40:ish at one of the shows I saw last January. I guess it makes them assholes?

Has he ever issued a single apology to fans? Ever?

Maybe you have selective memory.

On behalf of Guns N' Roses and myself I apologize to the fans who planned to see us at Rock In Rio - Lisbon.
March 30th, 2004



/jarmo

You got me there, Jarmo.  VR was late one night so that excuses Axl from going on stage late every night, no showing in Vancouver n PHilly, causing riots in Montreal and St louis, canceling a Euro tour, walking off stage in Chicago, at the Meadowlands and who knows how many other places.

And you sure got me with the apology.  After allthe time Axl has fucked over his fans, you dug hard and proved me wrong. You found that one apology. That Axl sure is a saint.

Obviously you stuck it out and remained a fan. What kept you going since Axl mistreated YOU so badly?

As I clearly stated, I like his singing and songwriting and loved the original GnR. But unlike all the Axl apologists on here, that doesn't mean I must defend all of his actions.  I loved watching Mike Tyson as a performer too (when he was actually good) but certainly thought his actions were deplorable.  But there are fans/zealots who will defend a performer/athlete/actor/celebrity through thick and thin no matter who they act because, well they're a celebrity/actor/athlete/performer. 

[GNRisSLASH]

Now, I don't think Slash lied, per se.  I think he probably got ahold of some bad information and repeated it....and that's probably an interpretation open to debate.  But, either way, I think there's a pretty vast amount of evidence to support the fact that what Slash said isn't true.

There is a big difference between lying/being dishonest and being wrong.  Everyone is wrong from time to time. Lying means telling someone one thing while knowing it isn't true.  The question isn't whether Slash lied here, it's whether he knew he was spreading false information. 

Dave - you love to use the words "prove it".  So go and prove that Slash knew that Axl had all these completed songs with lyrics and purposely said otherwise.  Was he wrong? Maybe - although we don't really know that either.  Did he "lie"? If you can show A) Axl has many songs with finished lyrics, and B) Slash knew this - then I would agree he lied.

Now go "prove it".

[killingvector]

Now, I don't think Slash lied, per se.  I think he probably got ahold of some bad information and repeated it....and that's probably an interpretation open to debate.  But, either way, I think there's a pretty vast amount of evidence to support the fact that what Slash said isn't true.

There is a big difference between lying/being dishonest and being wrong.  Everyone is wrong from time to time. Lying means telling someone one thing while knowing it isn't true.  The question isn't whether Slash lied here, it's whether he knew he was spreading false information. 

Dave - you love to use the words "prove it".  So go and prove that Slash knew that Axl had all these completed songs with lyrics and purposely said otherwise.  Was he wrong? Maybe - although we don't really know that either.  Did he "lie"? If you can show A) Axl has many songs with finished lyrics, and B) Slash knew this - then I would agree he lied.

Now go "prove it".

I wish you would apply that same standard of honesty and dishonesty to Axl. It would open your mind a bit more.

[GNRisSLASH]

Now, I don't think Slash lied, per se.  I think he probably got ahold of some bad information and repeated it....and that's probably an interpretation open to debate.  But, either way, I think there's a pretty vast amount of evidence to support the fact that what Slash said isn't true.

There is a big difference between lying/being dishonest and being wrong.  Everyone is wrong from time to time. Lying means telling someone one thing while knowing it isn't true.  The question isn't whether Slash lied here, it's whether he knew he was spreading false information. 

Dave - you love to use the words "prove it".  So go and prove that Slash knew that Axl had all these completed songs with lyrics and purposely said otherwise.  Was he wrong? Maybe - although we don't really know that either.  Did he "lie"? If you can show A) Axl has many songs with finished lyrics, and B) Slash knew this - then I would agree he lied.

Now go "prove it".

I wish you would apply that same standard of honesty and dishonesty to Axl. It would open your mind a bit more.

In America, there are criminal and civil trials.  In a criminal trial, you must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that someone is guilty.  That means that if there is even a tiny bit of doubt, you are supposed to vote "not guilty".  In a civil trial, you must only convince the jury that there is a high likelihood of guilt.  I liken a trial of Axl to a civil trial.  Can I/we conclusively prove that he is the reason for Vancouver, St Louis, Montreal, Philly, Buckethead leaving, Slash leaving, Duff leaving, Izzy leaving, wives leaving, producers leaving/being fired, managers coming and going, showing up late, canceling shows, canceling tours, etc?  No, I cannot prove it 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.  But I can certainly show a high likelihood given everything I've read, heard, statements from those in Axl's life, and most of all a consistent pattern or history of problems and issues.   Is he innocent of Vancouver? Maybe - could be the plane, the weather, etc. How about Philly? could be Clear Channel, I guess. And maybe Slash left for some other reason. But c'mon. This is not a one time incident. Or a two time incident. Or even a 5 time incident.  It happens over and over and over.  So no, I cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is at fault for all of this.  But it's pretty hard to blame someone else or excuse him for everything when you use any sort of logic.  So to me, to not own up to any of these things - to always blame someone else or completely ignore the issue, screams dishonesty.  It's not "lying"; it's being dishonest to his bandmates, the media, and most of all to his fans.

Am I whining about this? No - I don't give a rat's ass and just want to hear some new music.  I am actually more interested in how anyone could possibly overlook everything he's done to everyone around him and could still make excuses for everything.

[jimmythegent]

excellent post

logical, open minded and rational to a fault.

unfortunately and rather predictably,? it won't make a shred of difference to these people?

[jarmo]

There is a big difference between lying/being dishonest and being wrong.? Everyone is wrong from time to time. Lying means telling someone one thing while knowing it isn't true.?

I think I tried telling people that regarding Slash having the flu or pneumonia while the fact was that he was in the hospital due to his drinking.

So I guess I'm not the only one who thinks it can be considered lying when you only tell part of the story to make yourself look better?


I guess Booker will defend it by saying "it's his personal life and maybe he had the flu too"...


Anyway, I don't care, Slash can lie all he wants if it makes him happy. I found it interesting that somebody seems to agree with my "definition" of lying.




/jarmo

[pilferk]

And you don't think it's a bit obtuse to suggest they're not done, given we've heard them?? ?If Axl's singing them, they have lyrics..

So they have lyrics, so what?? See my previous example.? Several UYI songs were performed between 1986-1988, does that mean they were complete?? They weren't complete until they were formally recorded and went through the final mix in 1991.

We've heard preliminary bootleg versions of Axl's new songs.? Hell, "Madagascar" changed between the time it was first played and the December 2001 Vegas shows, so there's one example right there of how a song can be played but not yet complete.

And for hells sake, those songs are four years old now!? god only knows what Axl couldve done to them since they were last played live.

As far as lyrics go, (to use another band as an example) ever heard a song called "Louder than Hell" by Motley Crue?? It was originally "Hotter than Hell", with slightly different lyrics.? They played the early version live in 1984 before altering it for the Theater of Pain album in 1985.? Just an example of how a live version is not necessarily a completed version.

? I mean, lets be realistic here and not put blinders on simply to try to support our position.

Who was doing that?

Here's the quote:

""There's only a couple of songs with vocals on it -- I know that for a fact. "

To think the above is true, or was true back in June of '04, given we've heard 6 complete songs now, ONE of which was undeniably from the studio (IRS), and given we know that Axl has played the album at Crazy Horse (again, remember, confirmed), isn't realistic.? If you want to stand your ground and hold that position...hey, who am I to rob you of your illusions.? But it's an obtuse position to take, given what we know, and one obviously adopted strictly to bolster your own opinion.?

Just put the blinders back on.? I'm sure you'll be much happier that way.

[pilferk]

Now, I don't think Slash lied, per se.? I think he probably got ahold of some bad information and repeated it....and that's probably an interpretation open to debate.? But, either way, I think there's a pretty vast amount of evidence to support the fact that what Slash said isn't true.

There is a big difference between lying/being dishonest and being wrong.? Everyone is wrong from time to time. Lying means telling someone one thing while knowing it isn't true.? The question isn't whether Slash lied here, it's whether he knew he was spreading false information.?

Dave - you love to use the words "prove it".? So go and prove that Slash knew that Axl had all these completed songs with lyrics and purposely said otherwise.? Was he wrong? Maybe - although we don't really know that either.? Did he "lie"? If you can show A) Axl has many songs with finished lyrics, and B) Slash knew this - then I would agree he lied.

Now go "prove it".

I agree, 100%.? I think Slash was just wrong.? I don't think he lied, at all, in this case.

[Booker Floyd]

I don't think he lied, at all, in this case.

So in what cases did he lie?

[pilferk]

I don't think he lied, at all, in this case.

So in what cases did he lie?

I have no idea.  Not my argument.   And, since I don't really care if he DID/DOES lie....I'm not gonna go searching, either.

I said "in this case" simply because, as every human does, I'm sure he's lied at SOME point, about SOMETHING (jarmo's example is a good one, whether you think him justified or not).

[Falcon]

Now go "prove it".

Don't hold your breath, GIS. ?

Proof for a few around here revolve around opinion stated as fact backed by personal speculation and ill ? informed overanalysis.

Hell, I'm still waiting for proof the back up singers and horn section were Slash's idea..

Personally, I have no idea if Slash lied about how many songs Axl had vox on, only he does. ?If he knew for a fact Axl had more vox laid down than he stated, he's lying. ?If he was under the impression that's all
Axl had completed and stated that, he's not.

 

[pilferk]

Here's the quote:

""There's only a couple of songs with vocals on it -- I know that for a fact. "

To think the above is true, or was true back in June of '04, given we've heard 6 complete songs now, ONE of which was undeniably from the studio (IRS), and given we know that Axl has played the album at Crazy Horse (again, remember, confirmed), isn't realistic.? If you want to stand your ground and hold that position...hey, who am I to rob you of your illusions.? But it's an obtuse position to take, given what we know, and one obviously adopted strictly to bolster your own opinion.?

Just put the blinders back on.? I'm sure you'll be much happier that way.

First of all, you can just drop your condescending "put your blinders on" shit.? All you're doing is being a fucking jackass who can't bolster HIS argument without taking personal shots.? this is a simple discussion, so keep it at that and leave your pre-school insults out of it.

I've already given you examples of how songs performed live can change before completion, and how unreleased songs can also change.? But (ironically enough), you've donned YOUR blinders and completely ignored all those examples.? So to quote your childishness, "go ahead and put the blinders back on.? I'm sure you will be much happier that way."

I'm hardly taking "personal shots".? I'm pointing out the fragility of the position you're clinging to so desperatley....and that clinging to it is tantamout to wearing blinders.? If you'd like not to be labeled such, perhaps you could provide evidence that actually might pertain to the current incarnation of GnR, rather than "hypotheticals".? Truth is...you can't.

"Changed" does not equal "only a couple songs have vocals".? Complete does not equal "only a couple songs have vocals".? He didn't say "Only a couple of songs are complete".? He didn't say "Only a couple of songs won't be changed". I reprinted the exact quote for you.

You've given hypothetical situations that have little to no proven relation to the current incarnation of GnR.? Those that DO relate, have NOTHING to do with whether THESE songs have vocals or not..? Those songs you mention from the UYI era...they DID have vocals, prior to '91.? We've heard some of the demos.? They weren't complete, sure...but they had vocals.? We've heard them!

I've given you ACTUAL information regarding GnR and THIS set of songs.? We've heard 6 complete songs, 1 from the studio.? We've gotten reports that Axl played CD at Crazy Horse (a piece of information that refutes your argument completely, anyway) and those reports were confirmed by management.? We've heard OTHER PEOPLE talk about material with vocals on it...and more than 2 songs worth.? It's all the evidence COMBINED that makes it likely there were more than, and are more than, 2 songs with vocals on them.

You're basing your opinion on unfounded speculation.....unfounded speculation contradicted by established evidence.? That, to me, is putting blinders on.? Ignoring evidence, or attempting to "hypothetically" discredit it, because it doesn't support your position is a pretty tenuous position.? You're more than welcome to it...

[lynn1961]

This has gotten way too intense for me.   I can't even follow it anymore.  Too mind boggling.   

[pilferk]

1. How long ago were Axl's song played in "crazy horse"?
2. How long has it been since the last "new" song has been played live?
3. How long has it been since we've heard from someone who claimed to have heard multiple songs from Axl's album?

3-4 years to all the above, right?

Wrong.

1) July 16th, 2003....less than 1 year before Slash's comments.

2) December, 2002.? 18 months before Slash's comments.? In addition, IRS was played on the Trunk show on Labor Day weekend, 2003.

3) The Times article, which was what...about 3 months ago?? And, at the time of Slash's comments, there were 3 or 4 quotes, from within the band and without, that indicated there was more material than " a couple of songs with vocals".

So no, not stuff that's 3 to 4 years old or was 3 to 4 years old when Slash made his comments.

And, FYI, you can't gauge whether Slash's comments are true NOW, applied to the current state of the album, only if they were true when he made them....so the time frame that is pertinent is when things occurred in relation to when Slash actually MADE his comments, not to "right now".

I am introducing hypotheticals into the fray because over that period of time, anything could've happened.

1. All the songs played in crazy horse could've been scrapped by now.
2. Or they could be songs Axl no longer wants on his album (remember, he reputedly recorded 70 songs)
3. The songs performed live may not be fully recorded.
4. Or they could be songs Axl no longer wants on his album.
5. Any or all of the above songs, if they are included, could have been changed or re-arranged in numerous ways.? I gave you one example (guitar solo on Madagascar) and you ignored it.

didn't one of the band members say they'd written new material since they'd toured and wanted to record that as well, rather than use all the old material, or something to that effect?? So the distinct possibility exists that none of the previous material has been decidedly included on Chinese Demcracy.

The band member said some of the material had been recorded during the past 2 years..that's '03 - '05, yes.? But I don't believe they "quantified it" with a % of what's on the album.? They certainly didn't say ALL, which, of course, means that, at least, SOME of it was recorded prior to '03.? Slash made his comments in mid '04.

You are introducing hypotheticals because the actual EVIDENCE, such that it is, contradicts your opinon, so you're looking for any way possible to discredit it.?In the face of a lack of actual evidence to support your arguemnt, you resort to playing the "what if" game. The argument you're presenting, however, is a "Slippery Slope" fallacy (go ahead, look it up).

As for the numbered comments (1-5), they're irrelevant because they're rampant speculation, and unfounded rampant speculation contradicted by evidence we've seen.? That's a pretty tenuous position to try to hold on to, but, as I said, if you want to hold on to it, you're welcome to it.

Now, if Axl had toured recently or walked into some club last week and played those songs, then you'd have a stronger argument.? But after 3-4 years, you really don't have a leg to stand, because so much could have changed.

It's YOU who don't really have a leg to stand on, because you have no actual PROOF that what you're "guessing at" is remotely reality.? I have actual things that have occurred and been said that support mine. Is it possible? Sure.? Doubtful, to the almost the point of certainty, given the evidence at hand? Absolutely. In any formal forum of debate or discussion, your assertions would be dismissed because they're unfounded.?

Yes, everything I presented is hypothetical, but as I said, when youve had a huge time lapse between public screenings of Axl's songs, many hypothetical situations could exist.? You wish to accuse me of blinders, while you're blindly ignoring the very real possibility that all my hypotheticals bear validity.

The evidence we have directly contradicts your "hypotheticals"....so calling them "very real possibilities" is giving them far too much credit.? And I'm not blindly ignoring them.? If I were blindly ignoring them, I wouldn't be pointing out the very large holes in them....because I wouldn't consider them at all.?

Whether you like it or not, we have NOT heard six complete songs.? None of the songs played live count as complete because we've heard no studio versions.

We have heard 6 complete songs.? Not complete RECORDED songs (I didn't say that).? 6 complete songs (not snippets).? They had a begining, middle, end, music, solos, and vocals.? They were complete songs.? Whether YOU like it or not.? And ONE of those songs was most definitely from the studio.

And furthermore, I never claimed to have "proof" nor do I need to provide such.? My only position was that the POSSIBILITY exists that Axl's songs may indeed not be as complete as one might think.? I didn't barge into this argument intending to prove or disprove anything, merely to suggest that alternate scenarios may exist.? Maybe if you'd read a little more carefully rather than tossing barbs so frivolously, you wouldve understoof that.

And I intend only to show that your opinion, WITHOUT proof (which you say, yourself, you don't have), while possible, is pretty damn unlikely given the evidence at hand.? I can provide you with a boatload of evidence to the contrary....both proven facts/events and comments from a variety of people over a variety of time frames.? You provide "what if's" that have nothing to support them.? Again, if you want to cling to that tenuous position, more power to you...you're welcome to it.

And, on that note, I think my point is made so feel free to have "the last word".

Edit:? Oh, and here's one of those comments "from a variety of people".? From Eddie Trunk on the CD he played back in Sept of '03:

"The rest of the CD was also cool. It sounded like a total of 3 songs, with instrumental versions of each of the 3, making a total of 6 tracks (I think). The last track, which I did not play, was the best. A great rocker, with tons of shredding guitar from Buckethead. I don't know what the title was, but I kinda wish I had the chance to play that one as well. Mike & I didn't really know what we had, so we just played the first track IRS. "

3 songs with vocals, and 3 instrumental versions of them.

3 STUDIO tracks, with vocals, confirmed to exist in late '03.? 3 is more than "a couple".

And now I really am out.?

[younggunner]

Proof for a few around here revolve around opinion stated as fact backed by personal speculation and ill   informed overanalysis.

Hell, I'm still waiting for proof the back up singers and horn section were Slash's idea..

I dont really think thats true. i think its more of people dont really care anymore to go back and "prove" their case. There was a time when I would be interested in going back and getting all the quotes and examples necessary to "prove" slash has lied.

But now who cares. And thats the thing, most people have moved on. The majoirty of the people who want to be proven so badly are doin it so they can somehow paint Slash as an angel or something and solidy the case against Axl ROse

SLash and his little tophat disciples should just move on from the whole gnr thing. WHen its over, its over....its over.

[makane]

Proof for a few around here revolve around opinion stated as fact backed by personal speculation and ill? ?informed overanalysis.

Hell, I'm still waiting for proof the back up singers and horn section were Slash's idea..

I dont really think thats true. i think its more of people dont really care anymore to go back and "prove" their case. There was a time when I would be interested in going back and getting all the quotes and examples necessary to "prove" slash has lied.

Ye, now you just blabber shit instead of proving anything, good attitude.