Does Axl Need To Set The Record Straight? (Once and for All)

[Dead N' Bloated]

Slash presented 12 songs. Axl said he could do a few of them.

Slash took his songs and put out the Snakepit record.

Then quit the band thinking Axl's not gonna be able to make it without him.


That's hos Slash's friend Marc Canter recalled the events in an interview.



/jarmo

Don't even bother. I've been telling that to people for 10 years and no one will listen. People think we're ignorent?



 

[m_rated96]

the way you tell that story makes slash look like a douchebag;

as TOM ZUTAUT says "Axl had a vision that GN'R should change and Slash had an attitude that Guns N' Roses was Guns N' Fucking Roses and that's who they were. I don't think they could get over their breakdown in communication."

Slash says in his autobiog axl took a pronounced disinterest in the snakepit demos. If Axl had a sound change in mind for GnR (which he clearly did), whatever he would have wanted to do with Slash's music was probably in a complete opposite direction to slash.

So what, your going to bitch out at slash for holding his musical integrity; instead of making shitty compromises and putting out some shit?

[Dead N' Bloated]

the way you tell that story makes slash look like a douchebag; why dont you read his (much more believeable) side to it in his autobiog.;

Slash presented axl with

I think its a god summary


 

[m_rated96]

yeah so i double clicked.

[Jim Bob]

As for "setting the record straight" about the old line up "leaving him" - I'd love to hear his version of the story.  His side of that is not going to set the record straight - just another side.  All sides are viable and part of the whole story.  No single one is the "right" version that will set it all straight.       

I don't givea fuck about that.   He ended up getting a better band out of it, why dwell on all that negative bullshit from the past?    Its all in the past now and I assume leave it there.   

[lynn1961]

As for "setting the record straight" about the old line up "leaving him" - I'd love to hear his version of the story.  His side of that is not going to set the record straight - just another side.  All sides are viable and part of the whole story.  No single one is the "right" version that will set it all straight.       

I don't givea fuck about that.   He ended up getting a better band out of it, why dwell on all that negative bullshit from the past?    Its all in the past now and I assume leave it there.   

I was just responding to the original post, with what I think.  Some don't give a fuck, and that's ok.  Many do keep saying they want to hear Axl's version...and some think it will be the right version.  That's all I'm saying. 

Did he get a better band out of things?  Did he?  That's all a matter of opinion, too. 

It's difficult, for some, to leave all things in the past.  From what I've heard, so far, I think the songs are very good.  What bothers me, honestly, is that he still maintains the name Guns n' Roses.     

The band that made and was GnR is no more.  What Axl is doing now is awesome.  Whatever happened in the past is just that - it's in the past.  I still think he'd do better for himself if he let that name go (because there's been way too many incarnations and reincarnations) and just came out with his music under a new name.  Because it's not the same.  Neither the music or the musicians.  Not even close to what was GnR.   

[Jim Bob]

The band that made and was GnR is no more.  What Axl is doing now is awesome.  Whatever happened in the past is just that - it's in the past.  I still think he'd do better for himself if he let that name go (because there's been way too many incarnations and reincarnations) and just came out with his music under a new name.  Because it's not the same.  Neither the music or the musicians.  Not even close to what was GnR.   

this is simply repeating the same argument some have made for YEARS.   I think its time to get over this hangup over the name.     2008 ya know?

[lynn1961]

The band that made and was GnR is no more.  What Axl is doing now is awesome.  Whatever happened in the past is just that - it's in the past.  I still think he'd do better for himself if he let that name go (because there's been way too many incarnations and reincarnations) and just came out with his music under a new name.  Because it's not the same.  Neither the music or the musicians.  Not even close to what was GnR.   

this is simply repeating the same argument some have made for YEARS.   I think its time to get over this hangup over the name.     2008 ya know?

I know it's an argument that's been out there for years and has been heard before, but I think it's a valid argument.  I agree, it's 2008, and Axl is releasing some awesome music.  But it's 2008 and not 1991 or 1993.  A lot of years and many incarnations have passed......   

In any event, the original question was whether he needed to set the record straight.  And I still say I would like to hear his side of things, that's all.       

[Jim Bob]

I'm interested in hearing whatever Axl wants to tell us, but Im way more interested to hear stories behind these songs and whats gone on all these years.  Not rehash of the past.

and yea that argument should be put to rest finally.    When I say its 2008, I mean this is something that we have no control over and should have long ago been accepted. 

[Verasa]

The band that made and was GnR is no more.  What Axl is doing now is awesome.  Whatever happened in the past is just that - it's in the past.  I still think he'd do better for himself if he let that name go (because there's been way too many incarnations and reincarnations) and just came out with his music under a new name.  Because it's not the same.  Neither the music or the musicians.  Not even close to what was GnR.   

this is simply repeating the same argument some have made for YEARS.   I think its time to get over this hangup over the name.     2008 ya know?

As for "setting the record straight" about the old line up "leaving him" - I'd love to hear his version of the story.  His side of that is not going to set the record straight - just another side.  All sides are viable and part of the whole story.  No single one is the "right" version that will set it all straight.       

I don't givea fuck about that.   He ended up getting a better band out of it, why dwell on all that negative bullshit from the past?    Its all in the past now and I assume leave it there.   

I was just responding to the original post, with what I think.  Some don't give a fuck, and that's ok.  Many do keep saying they want to hear Axl's version...and some think it will be the right version.  That's all I'm saying. 

Did he get a better band out of things?  Did he?  That's all a matter of opinion, too. 

It's difficult, for some, to leave all things in the past.  From what I've heard, so far, I think the songs are very good.  What bothers me, honestly, is that he still maintains the name Guns n' Roses.     

The band that made and was GnR is no more.  What Axl is doing now is awesome.  Whatever happened in the past is just that - it's in the past.  I still think he'd do better for himself if he let that name go (because there's been way too many incarnations and reincarnations) and just came out with his music under a new name.  Because it's not the same.  Neither the music or the musicians.  Not even close to what was GnR.  

yeah I agree the name and old lineup is still a valid arguement because look at the direction this topic has headed, like a goddamn car that needs a allignment..this topic veered to the left really fast.

everybody wants to take what they want from it and ignore the whole point in the OP.

What about the casual fans?   In talking about GnR, do you guys have any clue how many casual listeners dont have a clue whats going on? I think the percentage would actually be astounding.  Guns N' Roses is a great,great rock n' roll story that is missed because of misconceptions of axl rose. 17 years has passed since the illusion records and people have been all over the place in what is exactly going on with the band. members of the band dont speak or are afraid to make any comment that could come back and bite them in the ass and Axl does not go public with anything.. the 02' press release answered a lot of things for me but for a casual fan it went unnoticed. I'm a casual fan of Pearl Jam but I do not go out of my way to find any information about them, but if Eddie Vedder went through numerous lineup changes ( which i think PJ has over the years) and worked on a album for many many years it would peak my interest in hearing it, but I dont know if I would be inclined to hunt any and all information about them. If I heard he was going to be doing a indepth interview that should answer alot of questions people may have  I think I would tune in

[Hudson]

I'm a casual fan of Pearl Jam but I do not go out of my way to find any information about them, but if Eddie Vedder went through numerous lineup changes ( which i think PJ has over the years) and worked on a album for many many years it would peak my interest in hearing it, but I dont know if I would be inclined to hunt any and all information about them. If I heard he was going to be doing a indepth interview that should answer alot of questions people may have  I think I would tune in

I agree. I am a Metallica fan but I do not follow up on them like I do with GNR by going on message boards and reading everything I can on them. When Jason Newsted left I wanted to know what happened and who was going to replace him? Who was Robert Trujillo? What band was he in before? Is he good enough for Metallica? Who is better Jason or Robert? Is Metallica going to sound differently? Are they going to be better, worse, the same? These are all things music fans think about when changes occur in their favorite bands or bands they like. I mean how many people are still talking about Cliff Burton to this day?

When Steven was kicked out of GNR I wanted to know why. When Izzy left I wanted to know why. So it is only natural that we would want to hear it from Axl himself what happened? How did he get here? I want to know about Slash, Matt, and Duff, but I also want to know what happened with Brian May, BH, Dave Navarro, Josh Freese, Moby, etc.  I want to know how it feels to play with these musicians compared to the others. Did he seek out these particular individuals or did they approach him?

I think if you are a true music fan you follow the band and its members. However, not every music fan goes on messageboards, so they only get their information from what they hear occaissionally on local radio... which is usually nothing, unless an album is coming out. So in the GNR world casual fans probably do not have a clue as to how many different people have come and gone by now or took to create this album.

In the end Axl is going to do whatever he wants, but it would be nice if he would answer some of these questions for his fans because we are sincerely intrigued to know how this long journey began and ended.

[IKnowWhereIAM]

"... I think at the time Slash knew he would have to make compromises with Axl, I mean he had to sign over the rights to the band just to get Axl to go on stage. How much more compromising can he be?

If your life/livelihood rested with a bunch of wastoid drug addicts, wouldn't you try to protect it?  I think a lot of Axl's fears/actions stem from Slash's overdose, and near death...remember Slash's indignation that all Axl had to say was "I though I was going to have to replace my guitar player" (or something to that effect).

I am not appologising for, or defending anyone...but I don't believe Axl deserves 90% of the negative labels slapped on him.  He is an amazing artists, who wants things done right...he would rather have a crowd wait 2 hours than hear him at less than 100%.  He is labeled a recluse because he stays out of the public eye...I call him SMART for that, the man enjoys his privacy, as we all do.

I would love to hear an Axl interview that focused on 1998-present...not the same old stupid questions.

[Alfie Bones]

It's difficult, for some, to leave all things in the past.  From what I've heard, so far, I think the songs are very good.  What bothers me, honestly, is that he still maintains the name Guns n' Roses.     

I don't get why anyone thinks Axl should have given up the name when Slash quit.

The founding members of GN'R were Axl Rose, Izzy Stradlin, Tracii Guns, and a bunch of other scrubs. None of the members of VR. Slash was a replacement, and he played that role well for the decade he was in the band. He's one of the best guitarists alive, sure... but the "SLASH = GN'R" argument is old, and obviously wrong. Anyone who's heard Velvet Revolver try to play GN'R tunes knows that's a fallacy.

Izzy quit. They replaced him. Since 1991, Axl's been the only original Gunner in the band. Slash quit, then Sorum, who was a replacement of a replacement, and finally Duff. Alright, so what? Izzy was willing to tour with GN'R back in 2006, and Dizzy Reed's been in the band for nearly twenty years and was featured on ten of the fourteen tracks on "Greatest Hits".

If Axl didn't change the name from Guns N' Roses when the "Guns" part of the band left, I don't see why he should have ever changed the name in the late 90's just because some of the members quit. Slash had a replacement, his name is Robin Finck. Duff and Matt were still in the band when Robin came along. It's just as GN'R as it was in 1986.

[LunsJail]

It's difficult, for some, to leave all things in the past.  From what I've heard, so far, I think the songs are very good.  What bothers me, honestly, is that he still maintains the name Guns n' Roses.     

 It's just as GN'R as it was in 1986.

That statement is somewhat laughable but OK.....

[lynn1961]

It's difficult, for some, to leave all things in the past.  From what I've heard, so far, I think the songs are very good.  What bothers me, honestly, is that he still maintains the name Guns n' Roses.     

 It's just as GN'R as it was in 1986.

That statement is somewhat laughable but OK.....

Yeah, it is.  Because no matter what, there's only one person that's the same from then to now.  What he's doing now is great work, but the only thing remotely GnR about it is the name.  But, it's true, it's an old argument and it really doesn't matter.  Things are going to be the way they are going to be. 

Guns N' Roses is a great,great rock n' roll story that is missed because of misconceptions of axl rose. 17 years has passed since the illusion records and people have been all over the place in what is exactly going on with the band. members of the band dont speak or are afraid to make any comment that could come back and bite them in the ass and Axl does not go public with anything..

     

I think that sums it up pretty good....members of the band (past and present) don't talk about it or are afraid to make any comment that could come back and bite them in the ass (by press and diehard fans) and Axl does not go public with anything.  That's all very true.  Which is all the more reason why it would be great to actually hear Axl's take on a lot of things, including the making of CD.     

[Hudson]

If your life/livelihood rested with a bunch of wastoid drug addicts, wouldn't you try to protect it?  I think a lot of Axl's fears/actions stem from Slash's overdose, and near death...remember Slash's indignation that all Axl had to say was "I though I was going to have to replace my guitar player" (or something to that effect).

This is a valid point but separate issue, because from what we know this was not the reason he decided to keep the name. I would actually be more understanding if this would be the reason that he would give as to why he decided to keep the name... because he was afraid thes former members were all addicts and were on the verge of ODing and he was the only one off drugs at the time. Who could argue with that. I commend Axl for not really talking shit about how everyone else was an addict at some point. I think this may be the underlying reason why he began to distance himself from the rest of the members and try to take control of the GNR entity. I think Axl matured and became business savvy while everyone else was getting high and eating shit.

The founding members of GN'R were Axl Rose, Izzy Stradlin, Tracii Guns, and a bunch of other scrubs. None of the members of VR. Slash was a replacement, and he played that role well for the decade he was in the band. He's one of the best guitarists alive, sure... but the "SLASH = GN'R" argument is old, and obviously wrong. Anyone who's heard Velvet Revolver try to play GN'R tunes knows that's a fallacy.

No disrespect, but I hate when people bring up this argument about Tracii guns and the Hollywood Rose line up saying they are the original GNR. The thing is that Tracii Guns and the other guys did not record AFD, Lies, UYI I or UYI II, etc., sell millions of records under the GNR name, play in front of millions under the GNR name,  the people responsible for that material were Axl, Slash, Izzy, Duff, Steven.Tracii and the other guys only played with Axl and Izzy at a few shows before they quit, so big deal! So bringing them up everytime this issue comes up is pretty rediculous.  

At this point I am over the name thing and willing to accept it. However, that does not mean I agree with the decision. Both sides of the arguments have valid points. Personally I think it was not cool the way Axl kept the name because it seems like he was deceiving Slash and Duff when he told them to sign over the rights. I will add if Slash, Duff, Izzy, or whoever would have done the same to Axl I would be equally upset. I would not have supported Slash, Duff, and Izzy kicking out Axl and keeping the name either. It just does not sit well because I see it as deceiving and manipulitive against friends that almost family.

I am sure many disagree for a bazillion reasons, but that is just me. Slash and Duff fucked up because they trusted Axl and Axl screwed them over. That is why I still do not understand why Axl is pissed off at Slash & Duff when he got the better end of the deal. He got everything he wanted so what is there to be angry about? He got the name, he recorded the music he wanted with the people he wanted, without any objections from anyone, knowing he was calling all the shots, and can do whatever he wanted to complete his vision. I think he feels like he was the one that got fucked over, and that is why he won't even speak to Slash, Duff, etc., which makes no sense to me.

[IKnowWhereIAM]

I think everything before this post can be summed up like this:  Yes, God damn it!  We want to hear what Axl has to say...but he alone cannot 'set the record straight'.

I don't think we will need to wait too long to hear from Axl.  I've got a funny feeling...

[Alfie Bones]

That statement is somewhat laughable but OK.....

Yeah, it is.  Because no matter what, there's only one person that's the same from then to now.  What he's doing now is great work, but the only thing remotely GnR about it is the name.  But, it's true, it's an old argument and it really doesn't matter.  Things are going to be the way they are going to be.

My point was that in 1986, the band's lineup had just changed drastically. Slash, Duff, and Steven were replacements. Tracii Guns quit, and the band was still GN'R, despite only still having two members of the original band in it.

Likewise, Axl's been in the band for 23 years, and Dizzy's been there for 18.

[Jim Bob]

Yeah, it is.  Because no matter what, there's only one person that's the same from then to now.  What he's doing now is great work, but the only thing remotely GnR about it is the name.  But, it's true, it's an old argument and it really doesn't matter.  Things are going to be the way they are going to be. 

Nope.  Things change over time.   The music has GnR written all over it.   Just not the same as it was in 1992.   This is GnR in 2008.

[Hudson]

At the point when Tracii Guns was in the band, GNR was a REVOLVING door for musicians to come and go. A lot of the people in GNR in that period were in other bands as well. It also appears that no one was taking the band seriously as their band because of the flexibility to play with other bands and other people. Everyone was looking for the next best thing trying to get signed and it was like musicians musical chairs to see who would fit the best in different bands.

There were several different combinations of GNR until basically the Seattle tour, which I believe Axl, Slash, Izzy, Duff, & Steven agree was the point were they considered themselves an official band and officially GNR.