Billboard Exclusive: Axl Rose Speaks

[cineater]

I generally don't care about what was said years ago, time moves on and things change but Izzy called Axl trailor trash?  I'm sure at the time it wasn't funny but now.....

Any way, did that Tommy phone interview ever get published?

[Annie]

IMO, that's got nothing to do with this.

IDK, there is an old saying that "blood runs thicker than water".  Axl and Izzy probably have more of that long lost brother relationship.  Izzy is a big reason Axl came to LA in the first place. From all accounts Axl and Slash were just bandmates. 

That totally makes sense. My brother and I have a total LOVE/HATE relationship.

[cineater]

Maybe this was already asked and answered but if Axl knows the leaks occured from the strip club, does he know who did it and did he do any thing about it?

[GypsySoul]

IDK, there is an old saying that "blood runs thicker than water".  Axl and Izzy probably have more of that long lost brother relationship.  Izzy is a big reason Axl came to LA in the first place. From all accounts Axl and Slash were just bandmates. 

From all accounts, Axl and Duff were just bandmates too.

What I'm saying is that maybe Slash is dead to Axl because he crossed a line beyond "each other" within that line-up.

trashing each other is just part of the game of life so that, in time and under the right circumstances, you can get beyond it (like with Izzy guesting on tour)

[ppbebe]

Yes, Tom Zutaut was the first to mention it, in that very July 1999 issue of Spin.  HOWEVER -- Axl misquoted and misinterpreted it when addressing the issue.    They just said that GNR was looking at having to cancel the tour, and that the band was going to break up, if the "Axl owns the name" papers weren't signed.  That's different than being backstage and refusing to come out to perform unless the document was signed, which is what Axl was implying everyone said.

na he didn't misquoted and misinterpreted anything. he didn't specify whose saying. but his concern has been more on giving best performance to the fans than money. So he's the last person who would really do this.

"TOM ZUTAUT: On the eve of the tour, Axl told the rest of the band that the only way he would play was if they'd give ownership of the name to him. They were looking at canceling the tour and losing millions and millions of dollars, [so] they capitulated."

like you know this bs spread as fact. People bought it and went 'axl doesn't give a fuck about fans'
he had to set the record straight.

[Limulus]

well, yeah....but having so many fans and remaining THAT silent all the years we didnt have any chance to hear his version, just the stuff from others who decided to talk. its more like many simply gave up the band cause of nothing to come.

the Slash statement was (still) very very bitter. sad for the classic-line-up fans regarding any Slash re-apparing in Axl's recent group of musicians.

[Bridge]

From all accounts, Axl and Duff were just bandmates too.

I don't buy any of that "just bandmates" shit.  Axl and Slash may not have shared the "Indiana brotherhood" that Axl and Izzy shared, but they were damn close.  If they weren't, they would've just parted company on good terms and never spoken about it again.  The fact that Axl and Slash have both expressed acid-tongued bitterness towards one another publicly indicated to me that they were very close, because the closer you are to someone, the more a breakup like that hurts.  You know, you don't share a ten year relationship with someone, go up and down the road with themn, tour all over the world with them, live in garages with them, etc and say that you're "just bandmates".  Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy, and Steven shared a lot more than mere music.

"TOM ZUTAUT: On the eve of the tour, Axl told the rest of the band that the only way he would play was if they'd give ownership of the name to him. They were looking at canceling the tour and losing millions and millions of dollars, [so] they capitulated."

Exactly, Zutaut didn't say Axl was backstage when he made the demand, he just said that Axl made the demand before the tour.  As everyone remembers, the UYI tour started well before the release of the UYI albums, so Axl's statement in a way jives with what Zutaut said, because Axl said it was when they were renegotiated their contract with Geffen.  Which presumably could've been around the time the tour started since the album releases were still months and months away.

[Ali]

From all accounts, Axl and Duff were just bandmates too.

I don't buy any of that "just bandmates" shit.  Axl and Slash may not have shared the "Indiana brotherhood" that Axl and Izzy shared, but they were damn close.  If they weren't, they would've just parted company on good terms and never spoken about it again.  The fact that Axl and Slash have both expressed acid-tongued bitterness towards one another publicly indicated to me that they were very close, because the closer you are to someone, the more a breakup like that hurts.  You know, you don't share a ten year relationship with someone, go up and down the road with themn, tour all over the world with them, live in garages with them, etc and say that you're "just bandmates".  Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy, and Steven shared a lot more than mere music.

"TOM ZUTAUT: On the eve of the tour, Axl told the rest of the band that the only way he would play was if they'd give ownership of the name to him. They were looking at canceling the tour and losing millions and millions of dollars, [so] they capitulated."

Exactly, Zutaut didn't say Axl was backstage when he made the demand, he just said that Axl made the demand before the tour.  As everyone remembers, the UYI tour started well before the release of the UYI albums, so Axl's statement in a way jives with what Zutaut said, because Axl said it was when they were renegotiated their contract with Geffen.  Which presumably could've been around the time the tour started since the album releases were still months and months away.

No, Axl's statement does not jive with what Zutuat said, other than perhaps the timing.  He did not blackmail the band into signing over ownership of the name.  There's no way things would be as they are today if that were the case.  The contract memorializing transfer of the rights to the name would have rendered void if that were the case.

Ali

[D]

I have almost given up  posting opinions on the matter cause the only thing anyone wants to hear is "Axl is God and Slash sucks"


I will post this though

I think Axl may feel that Slash has used lies about him to make him a sympathetic "good guy" figure, whereas Axl is villainized.

Slash's popularity is still off the charts and maybe Axl feels Slash used lies etc to keep himself in the public eye while also burying Axl and making people view him more negatively.

To the general public, GNR were Axl and Slash, so Axl was painted as this bad horrible person and it just got ran with.

There are two sides to view this

Axl could've been a dick and really thought he WAS GNR

OR

The band were so high and out of their minds, Axl was forced to do all the business dealings and having to put up with a bunch of junkies would be fucking ridiculously hard on anybody.

This is one I really side with Axl on.  I don't think the old band's drug use gets enough negativity for the destruction of the band.

Where I differ however from others is, I don't absolve Axl of all fault in this but it certainly wasn't all of his either.

[Annie]

I have almost given up  posting opinions on the matter cause the only thing anyone wants to hear is "Axl is God and Slash sucks"


I will post this though

I think Axl may feel that Slash has used lies about him to make him a sympathetic "good guy" figure, whereas Axl is villainized.

Slash's popularity is still off the charts and maybe Axl feels Slash used lies etc to keep himself in the public eye while also burying Axl and making people view him more negatively.

To the general public, GNR were Axl and Slash, so Axl was painted as this bad horrible person and it just got ran with.

There are two sides to view this

Axl could've been a dick and really thought he WAS GNR

OR

The band were so high and out of their minds, Axl was forced to do all the business dealings and having to put up with a bunch of junkies would be fucking ridiculously hard on anybody.

This is one I really side with Axl on.  I don't think the old band's drug use gets enough negativity for the destruction of the band.

Where I differ however from others is, I don't absolve Axl of all fault in this but it certainly wasn't all of his either.

When my Mom and I were watching the VH1 Behind the Music about GNR which was a big plug for VELVET REVOLVER, she said that none of the guys in GNR would be anywhere without AXL. And while she supports my love of GNR she is not a fan per se. SLASH would love a reunion for the money only. He says he doesn't care about money, but that is a total lie. The shows with IZZY were totally from the heart. I'll never forget the tears in his eyes.

[14 Yrs Of Silence]

I have almost given up  posting opinions on the matter cause the only thing anyone wants to hear is "Axl is God and Slash sucks"


I will post this though

I think Axl may feel that Slash has used lies about him to make him a sympathetic "good guy" figure, whereas Axl is villainized.

Slash's popularity is still off the charts and maybe Axl feels Slash used lies etc to keep himself in the public eye while also burying Axl and making people view him more negatively.

To the general public, GNR were Axl and Slash, so Axl was painted as this bad horrible person and it just got ran with.

There are two sides to view this

Axl could've been a dick and really thought he WAS GNR

OR

The band were so high and out of their minds, Axl was forced to do all the business dealings and having to put up with a bunch of junkies would be fucking ridiculously hard on anybody.

This is one I really side with Axl on.  I don't think the old band's drug use gets enough negativity for the destruction of the band.

Where I differ however from others is, I don't absolve Axl of all fault in this but it certainly wasn't all of his either.

Good post.  Spot on with my feelings.

[draguns]

I read this article last week. In my opinion, Axl and Slash are both at fault for the breakup of the band. I think they were very close at one point. If you have a bad breakup of a close friendship or romantic relationship, you are going to say bad things about each other.  It's just human nature to do o in order to get your anger out. I'm just glad that Axl would like to work with Duff again at some point.

Regarding the record company issue, I think Axl has to be out there and market the album. It is partially his fault as to why the album hasn't succeeded the way it should have. I also would place blame on his management and the record company.

Hey and in regards to the interview, I'm sure that Bloomberg News would be better in doing the interview and not being negative. I just had to put in a plug for my employer. 

[GypsySoul]

both expressed acid-tongued bitterness towards one another publicly indicated to me that they were very close, because the closer you are to someone, the more a breakup like that hurts.  You know, you don't share a ten year relationship with someone, go up and down the road with themn, tour all over the world with them, live in garages with them, etc and say that you're "just bandmates". 

There are A LOT of divorced people who would disagree with that. 

[Bridge]

No, Axl's statement does not jive with what Zutuat said, other than perhaps the timing.  He did not blackmail the band into signing over ownership of the name.  There's no way things would be as they are today if that were the case.  The contract memorializing transfer of the rights to the name would have rendered void if that were the case.

So what do you think happened?  Slash, Duff, and Izzy just shrugged their shoulders and said "whatever" when the clause was put in the contract?  You think they were perfectly acceptant and permissive of it?  Baloney.  Call it blackmail, call it an ultimatum, whatever you want.  There's no way the other three guys would've agreed to sign over their rights to the name unless there was something looming over their heads (like Axl threatening to quit unless this stipulation was included).

And that isn't legally duress, since a choice was given.  I've always agreed that it wasn't an instance of Axl figuratively putting a gun to their heads, but a situation that was more deliberated.  In other words, it was something that was dicussed back and forth.  In that stituation, I wouldn't imagine that it constitutes "being forced to sign a contract under duress".

There are A LOT of divorced people who would disagree with that. 

Apples aren't being compared to apples there.  People don't get married to succeed at music with one another like a band does.  They don't have a common goal other than their love (or what they think of as love).  You're implying that the GNR relationships were all strictly, "let's play our instruments and then never have anything at all to do with each other", which is ridiculous.

And if you're saying that divorced people trashing each other isn't indicative of closeness, think again.  You have to understand that hatred does not equal indifference.  Hatred is a negative form of caring.  You have to care about the person or issue in order to be emotionally motivated to hate them.  If a married couple weren't close, there wouldn't be anything to fight about.  They'd have to have shared more than merely a bed in order to wage war on one another after the marriage fell apart.  That's why you don't see one night standers harassing each other afterwards.   

[Gunner80]

I have almost given up  posting opinions on the matter cause the only thing anyone wants to hear is "Axl is God and Slash sucks"


I will post this though

I think Axl may feel that Slash has used lies about him to make him a sympathetic "good guy" figure, whereas Axl is villainized.

Slash's popularity is still off the charts and maybe Axl feels Slash used lies etc to keep himself in the public eye while also burying Axl and making people view him more negatively.

To the general public, GNR were Axl and Slash, so Axl was painted as this bad horrible person and it just got ran with.

There are two sides to view this

Axl could've been a dick and really thought he WAS GNR

OR

The band were so high and out of their minds, Axl was forced to do all the business dealings and having to put up with a bunch of junkies would be fucking ridiculously hard on anybody.

This is one I really side with Axl on.  I don't think the old band's drug use gets enough negativity for the destruction of the band.

Where I differ however from others is, I don't absolve Axl of all fault in this but it certainly wasn't all of his either.

Jesus D let it go already. 

[ShotgunBlues1978]

I have almost given up  posting opinions on the matter cause the only thing anyone wants to hear is "Axl is God and Slash sucks"


I will post this though

I think Axl may feel that Slash has used lies about him to make him a sympathetic "good guy" figure, whereas Axl is villainized.

Slash's popularity is still off the charts and maybe Axl feels Slash used lies etc to keep himself in the public eye while also burying Axl and making people view him more negatively.

To the general public, GNR were Axl and Slash, so Axl was painted as this bad horrible person and it just got ran with.

There are two sides to view this

Axl could've been a dick and really thought he WAS GNR

OR

The band were so high and out of their minds, Axl was forced to do all the business dealings and having to put up with a bunch of junkies would be fucking ridiculously hard on anybody.

This is one I really side with Axl on.  I don't think the old band's drug use gets enough negativity for the destruction of the band.

Where I differ however from others is, I don't absolve Axl of all fault in this but it certainly wasn't all of his either.

The easiest way to spot a liar is to look for the person whose story changes completely every time they tell

Axl has never wavered

Slash's account of what happened changes every time he tells it

[Ali]

No, Axl's statement does not jive with what Zutuat said, other than perhaps the timing.  He did not blackmail the band into signing over ownership of the name.  There's no way things would be as they are today if that were the case.  The contract memorializing transfer of the rights to the name would have rendered void if that were the case.

So what do you think happened?  Slash, Duff, and Izzy just shrugged their shoulders and said "whatever" when the clause was put in the contract?  You think they were perfectly acceptant and permissive of it?  Baloney.  Call it blackmail, call it an ultimatum, whatever you want.  There's no way the other three guys would've agreed to sign over their rights to the name unless there was something looming over their heads (like Axl threatening to quit unless this stipulation was included).

And that isn't legally duress, since a choice was given.  I've always agreed that it wasn't an instance of Axl figuratively putting a gun to their heads, but a situation that was more deliberated.  In other words, it was something that was dicussed back and forth.  In that stituation, I wouldn't imagine that it constitutes "being forced to sign a contract under duress".

I think Slash and Duff signed over the rights to the name not thinking about what could happen down the road.  And, no offense, but I don't think you understand what constitutes duress.  Duress is defined as compulsion by threat.  Axl threatening to do anything, not go on stage, not do a tour, not play a show, would all constitute duress.  That is duress.

Believe what you want, but had there been any legal remedy for Duff and Slash to get back their rights to the band's name, they would've seen to it.  We are where we are today because there was no legal remedy for Duff and Slash.  There was no legal remedy because there was nothing illegal, i.e. compulsion by threat, about the signing over of the rights to the Guns N' Roses name.

Ali

[jazjme]

If going down this road, I would say more than likely, atm in time when this was going on (top of the world) , etc. Which I believe is that this may be where drug and substance abuse MAY have taken part in the decision to agree , thinking that we are the biggest thing since sliced bread... and Axl worked with them wanted to have a new record out , and shit started getting thrown at him, but why should Axl give it up GNR? If they left, somewhat or tried to get clean after, and come back and throw more shit at him?

[Juanjay]

One thing people forget to mention is Axl came up with the name. Like Zach with RATM. The other members of RATM couldn't use the name because Zach came up with it. So the other members have no standing, contract or not. They have rights to the music they were a part of and nothing more.

[Limulus]

^^even that is not being totally proven. for example Tracii Guns' story is different. Axl still "uses" his name in a way.

Axl always had that kind of longer viewing about things (like talking about releasing a double album @ CBGB'87 show which then came out 9/91)....so interpretating this longer view being part of his personality it could have been an intentional move by him saving the band name for himself only to get the all the power (he said himself in an interview that "yes, i wanted power...") for a 1man-leadership under the GN'R b(r)and name....which he got in the end.