Gilby talks about Guns N' Roses, Axl Rose, Slash and Chinese Democracy

[Limulus]

ha, still talking CD writing credits when he didnt even talk about that, Ali? whats our punch-bowl?

You're just refusing to understand a word he's saying, aren't you.

no, i got his point....but that one is just taken out of context only concentrating on CD writing credits to point out Gilby's version "is factly wrong"....which simply isnt! his answer was not only about contribution parts but about creating an upcoming epic album in combination with contribution parts and trust. he didnt talk about CD directly. just look at that interview part. people twisted Gilby's answer in that way that Axl's hired musicians never contributed on CD and they took CD writing credits as a proof for Gilby being wrong. then again he never spoke about CD or other older albums in that answer, neither he did spoke about contribution parts only.

[jarmo]

Let me ask you one thing.

If somebody says to you, Limulus if you want to achieve this, you will have to do/change/allow for this and that.


How do you interpret that?

Do you think the person telling you thinks you haven't done/changed/allowed this and that before? Or do you think the person is saying that only to inform you, and the person knows you've done those things before?





/jarmo

[Limulus]

thats the point, Jarmo: its about what he really said vs. what he really means. the later always leaves room for interpretation, smth. differing often from subject to subject. off course the blind-following-Axl fans felt a bit offended and twisted his answer a little to make Gilby look bad, wrong, whatever.
as people know Gilby for his GN'R times to some point it makes sense for them to think he probably took put his experiences and judgements out of it and put it indirectly in his answer, or, maybe really judges CD not being THE epic album many have hoped for it to become worldwide - blaming it on the method Axl lets his hired Guns contributing to it. but he simply didnt say this, this is all speculation as its not totally clear to be seen in his words, exscpecially in a short answer like his one.

same shit goes along with many others, Axl being misinterpretated and twisted aswell.

[Bodhi]

ha, still talking CD writing credits when he didnt even talk about that, Ali? whats our punch-bowl?

You're just refusing to understand a word he's saying, aren't you.

I think you are all missing each others point here.

The one side is saying Axl lets his band members contribute, which is proven by the "CD" liner notes in which the band got a ton of writing credits.

The other doesnt seem to be denying that Axl lets the band members contribute, they are saying he has final authorization over whats get used, thus limiting their contribution.  So it is not a democracy (no pun intended)  A lot of bands who work as a democracy vote on whats get used on an album and if that means the lead singer gets out voted, he may have to sing a song he didn't write or has no emotional attachment to.  Thats the way a lot of bands work.  James Hetfield had to fight real hard to get "Unforgiven 3" put on the last Metallica album for example.


I'm going to throw a new argument into the mix, which is we have NO idea whatsoever how the song writing process works in Guns N Roses here in 2011.  As usual we have a ton of assumptions.  We know band members contribute, but we have no idea if Axl controls every idea that makes the record, you just ASSUME that he does.  There is this image of Axl ruling with an iron fist but we have no idea if that is what really happens or not.  I do know that Axl has no problem giving credit where credit is due.  Didn't the band almost have to twist his arm to record "This I Love?"  That hardly sounds like a situation where Axl is ordering people around and not listening to what the band has to say.  He said himself that the songs on "CD" were chosen by "everyone involved."

[westcoast_junkie]

ha, still talking CD writing credits when he didnt even talk about that, Ali? whats our punch-bowl?

You're just refusing to understand a word he's saying, aren't you.

I think you are all missing each others point here.

The one side is saying Axl lets his band members contribute, which is proven by the "CD" liner notes in which the band got a ton of writing credits.

The other doesnt seem to be denying that Axl lets the band members contribute, they are saying he has final authorization over whats get used, thus limiting their contribution.  So it is not a democracy (no pun intended)  A lot of bands who work as a democracy vote on whats get used on an album and if that means the lead singer gets out voted, he may have to sing a song he didn't write or has no emotional attachment to.  Thats the way a lot of bands work.  James Hetfield had to fight real hard to get "Unforgiven 3" put on the last Metallica album for example.


I'm going to throw a new argument into the mix, which is we have NO idea whatsoever how the song writing process works in Guns N Roses here in 2011.  As usual we have a ton of assumptions.  We know band members contribute, but we have no idea if Axl controls every idea that makes the record, you just ASSUME that he does.  There is this image of Axl ruling with an iron fist but we have no idea if that is what really happens or not.  I do know that Axl has no problem giving credit where credit is due.  Didn't the band almost have to twist his arm to record "This I Love?"  That hardly sounds like a situation where Axl is ordering people around and not listening to what the band has to say.  He said himself that the songs on "CD" were chosen by "everyone involved."

Hence, Gilby probably don't know much more about the process in Gn'R than chinese blues.....hence, he assuming GnR can't make an epic album the way they are working (with hired guns), doesn't mean anything more than me assuming Gilby wish he was one of the hired guns....

"Democracy is the worst form of government, exept all the others" (Churchill). Majority-rule in a band don't do....chemistry is the key-word!!!

[Ali]

ha, still talking CD writing credits when he didnt even talk about that, Ali? whats our punch-bowl?

You're just refusing to understand a word he's saying, aren't you.

I think you are all missing each others point here.

The one side is saying Axl lets his band members contribute, which is proven by the "CD" liner notes in which the band got a ton of writing credits.

The other doesnt seem to be denying that Axl lets the band members contribute, they are saying he has final authorization over whats get used, thus limiting their contribution.  So it is not a democracy (no pun intended)  A lot of bands who work as a democracy vote on whats get used on an album and if that means the lead singer gets out voted, he may have to sing a song he didn't write or has no emotional attachment to.  Thats the way a lot of bands work.  James Hetfield had to fight real hard to get "Unforgiven 3" put on the last Metallica album for example.


I'm going to throw a new argument into the mix, which is we have NO idea whatsoever how the song writing process works in Guns N Roses here in 2011.  As usual we have a ton of assumptions.  We know band members contribute, but we have no idea if Axl controls every idea that makes the record, you just ASSUME that he does.  There is this image of Axl ruling with an iron fist but we have no idea if that is what really happens or not.  I do know that Axl has no problem giving credit where credit is due.  Didn't the band almost have to twist his arm to record "This I Love?"  That hardly sounds like a situation where Axl is ordering people around and not listening to what the band has to say.  He said himself that the songs on "CD" were chosen by "everyone involved."

I understand what you're getting at, but here is my problem with that:  you're talking about limiting contribution by picking and choosing which parts and which songs make the record.  Gilby said that Axl needs to let them contribute, period.  He didn't say let them decide which songs make the record or which parts/takes make the record.  Gilby's statement implied that Axl needs to let them contribute, period.  As if he hadn't done it before.  He did.  If Gilby meant something other than letting the band contribute at all, he didn't say that and should have.  I'm just taking taking his comment at face value.

Ali

[Limulus]

according to Gilby in here band contribution and trust seem to be the keywords for Axl in creating an upcoming great epic album.

ok, in this case Gilby's definiton of "trust" and "contribution" would have need to be explained.
on lowest level any player on an album does contribute on it - which obviously cant be the meaning in here.

[Bodhi]

I understand what you're getting at, but here is my problem with that:  you're talking about limiting contribution by picking and choosing which parts and which songs make the record.  Gilby said that Axl needs to let them contribute, period.  He didn't say let them decide which songs make the record or which parts/takes make the record.  Gilby's statement implied that Axl needs to let them contribute, period.  As if he hadn't done it before.  He did.  If Gilby meant something other than letting the band contribute at all, he didn't say that and should have.  I'm just taking taking his comment at face value.

Ali

yeah totally, I am in agreement with you, the band members have contributed to every record including "Appetite."  I just read the argument on here and it seems that some people don't count it as contributing if Axl has final say on everything.  I was just saying we know band members contribute but most assume that Axl goes through everything and just takes whatever he wants, and we have no evidence of that being the case.  I cited the "This I Love" example as it truly being a band effort, because they talked Axl into doing that song, which he didn't want to do.  If it were Axl ruling with an iron fist, that would not have happened.  It goes to show this is very much a band, not a solo show,  they go back and forth and throw ideas at  each other.

[Ali]

according to Gilby in here band contribution and trust seem to be the keywords for Axl in creating an upcoming great epic album blowing.

ok, in this case Gilby's definiton of "trust" and "contribution" would have need to be explained.
on lowest level any player on an album does contribute on it - which obviously cant be the meaning in here.

I think trust is such a subjective and loaded word, there are bound to be a bunch of different interpretations.  Contribution is something that has a more objective, clear criteria.  A songwriting credit is a tangible way of measuring contribution.  Therefore, I think it's undeniable that the band has contributed, and quite significantly at that, to the creation of new GN'R music.

Ali

[Limulus]

still CD wasnt even asked or answered in that interview part directly, still it is put into the line here in your argumentation.
but when assuming CD work was a main part of Gilby's answer.....than (IMO) he means that the way Axl trusts his band members and the way he let contribute his band members on CD, has been the main factor why CD was an inferior music release and didnt get THE worldwide reputation blowing away the older Guns work. he blames Axl's method, and that this would have to change for an upcoming great epic album.

[Ali]

still CD wasnt even asked or answered in that interview part directly, still it is put into the line here in your argumentation.
but when assuming CD work was a main part of Gilby's answer.....than (IMO) he means that the way Axl trusts his band members and the way he let contribute his band members on CD, has been the main factor why CD was an inferior music release and didnt get THE worldwide reputation blowing away the older Guns work. he blames Axl's method, and that this would have to change for an upcoming great epic album.

I think despite what you say, you are not understanding the point.    Whatever.  You'll see it however you want.  However, this latest answer makes it pretty clear you are reading into what he's saying...to a large degree IMO.

Ali

[jarmo]

thats the point, Jarmo: its about what he really said vs. what he really means.

You didn't answer the question. Not surprising.

You interpret things your way because that fits your point of view, which is pretty apparent by just reading your signature and quote.




/jarmo

[Limulus]

Ali, so do you, multiple times, by taking your own implication of Gilby's few words all about CD issues and lately pointing out your definition of contribution thoughts on music - trying to point it out as a fact and trying to put Gilby down as being wrong. people see it different, dude, as simple as that. to get a better discussion for this small interview part we'd need Gilby's definiton of "contribution", not yours.

Gilby was not asked "why do you think CD didnt work out that good for the general public?", he was asked about the possibility of an ultimate upcoming epic album....which Gilby agreed to be possibile to do for Axl if he'd changed his method of co-acting with bandmembers in the studio.

in the end its just a short interview part. and as long as we dont have more info from Gilby about what he really meant in his short answer....its all interpretation. and people differ in doing that.

[Limulus]

Let me ask you one thing.

If somebody says to you, Limulus if you want to achieve this, you will have to do/change/allow for this and that.


How do you interpret that?

Do you think the person telling you thinks you haven't done/changed/allowed this and that before? Or do you think the person is saying that only to inform you, and the person knows you've done those things before?

/jarmo

depends on the other person and situation...can be just some info, tip to reach a goal, or an experienced call, or some appel or even some help etc....hard to generalize. thats why i left out the answer before. but as you really wanted it, here it is 

[westcoast_junkie]

Ali, so do you, multiple times, by taking your own implication of Gilby's few words all about CD issues and lately pointing out your definition of contribution thoughts on music - trying to point it out as a fact and trying to put Gilby down as being wrong. people see it different, dude, as simple as that. to get a better discussion for this small interview part we'd need Gilby's definiton of "contribution", not yours.

Gilby was not asked "why do you think CD didnt work out that good for the general public?", he was asked about the possibility of an ultimate upcoming epic album....which Gilby agreed to be possibile to do for Axl if he'd changed his method of co-acting with bandmembers in the studio.

in the end its just a short interview part. and as long as we dont have more info from Gilby about what he really meant in his short answer....its all interpretation. and people differ in doing that.

Gilby answers to that if a epic album is possible: "yes, but he would need to let his bandmates contribute & trust them." It doesn't say anywhere in there that Axl need to change any methods...You call everyone interpreters, then you are the worst twister in here....

And as I've already said, I doubt Gilby knows much about the level of contribution and trust in Gn'R theese days....Still, he is right. Of course the bandmates need to contribute. Axl can't play all the instruments himself  

[sleeper]

I wonder what Gilby meant by Axl's new plan?

Q: Guns N' Roses allegedly started falling apart years before you entered the band, and many consider it miraculous that it lasted so long at all with that much material released. With the tension between Slash and Axl steadily increasing, how was it to be attached to a ticking time bomb? Did you realize that it wouldn't last long before the band would implode?

i don't think the band started to fall apart until the tour was over & axl started to put the new plan in place. i thought the tour was very successful & obviously the illusion records sold well. but u can't have a dangerous band & not have the threat of implosion over your shoulder.

[jarmo]

Let me ask you one thing.

If somebody says to you, Limulus if you want to achieve this, you will have to do/change/allow for this and that.


How do you interpret that?

Do you think the person telling you thinks you haven't done/changed/allowed this and that before? Or do you think the person is saying that only to inform you, and the person knows you've done those things before?

/jarmo

depends on the other person and situation...can be just some info, tip to reach a goal, or an experienced call, or some appel or even some help etc....hard to generalize. thats why i left out the answer before. but as you really wanted it, here it is 

So if I told you: You need to get in great shape if you wanna finish and win that marathon.

What am I saying? That you're already in great shape and you can win the New York marathon? Or that you need to train more or change something in your training?




/jarmo

[Limulus]

Gilby answers to that if a epic album is possible: "yes, but he would need to let his bandmates contribute & trust them." It doesn't say anywhere in there that Axl need to change any methods...You call everyone interpreters, then you are the worst twister in here....

cool someone finally quotes his real words aswell!
as for contribution, i've pointed it all out that we'd need Gilby's definition of that, f.e. everyone playing an instrument on an album "could" already be labeled as contributor. Gilby was IMO talking about how Axl deals with band members in terms of contribution and trust, and that this form or method of Axl's working would be the key to a successful epic upcoming album. dont see this as twisting at all. nice attack though!

[Limulus]

So if I told you: You need to get in great shape if you wanna finish and win that marathon.

What am I saying? That you're already in great shape and you can win the New York marathon? Or that you need to train more or change something in your training?

/jarmo

thats more specific. you're mentioning 2 different things in 1 sentence:
to finish a marathon = (IMO) making it completely through it, not depending on being the first, somewhere in the middle or the last
to win a marathon = being the first

was it supposed to be like that or do you just wanted to tell "to win" the marathon (where finishing obviously would have to be done aswell but could have left out in this sentence. just trying to avoid confusion)?
anyway it also depends WHO is telling me that (some dude from the street, my trainer, long time sport friends, my girlfriend, some anonymus internet dude i've never met etc.), WHEN he would tell that to me (years before, a few months before, 2 weeks before the marathon etc.) and under what CIRCUMSTANCES (honest discussion, small talk, drunk on a party etc.).

[jarmo]

It would be somebody who you had no contact with for at least ten years.

Somebody who has no idea about how much or how you train....




/jarmo