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

[Ali]

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.

This is exactly the point we were trying to make to you.  Gilby's statement implies that Axl needs to do something that he hasn't been doing - he needs to change - by allowing the band to contribute.  The band did contribute on every single song and got songwriting credits to prove it on every song but "This I Love".  The problem is you are trying to attribute your definition of the word "contribute" to what Gilby means.  I'm taking what Gilby said at face value and offering a fact-based response on why Gilby is off-base.  That's it and that's all.  I'm done.

Ali

[Ali]

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

I didn't see the before, but not that it was pointed out, yeah, it fits perfectly.

Ali

[Smoking Guns]

Everyone has an opinion... Let Gilby have his and be done with it.  He has always been a really cool guy and everyone liked him on a personal level.  Lets not try to make him into some dick or something. 

[Ali]

Everyone has an opinion... Let Gilby have his and be done with it.  He has always been a really cool guy and everyone liked him on a personal level.  Lets not try to make him into some dick or something. 

That's a bit of an overreaction.  Saying he is not factually accurate in his assessment of how the new band operates is not the same thing as making him into some dick.

Ali

[D]

Not all bands are created equal

Take Bon Jovi for instance... If Jon doesn't approve, it doesn't make the record

So really Axl having 100 percent creative control is no big deal..... He I would imagine gets submitted different ideas or what not and if he likes something he works on it and molds it into something great... If he doesn't like it, he doesn't use it.

like "better" for instance... Robin prob played it for him or recorded it and the CD was sent to Axl, Axl loved it, crafted it into a song... Other stuff.... ended up on the cutting room floor which is a common practice.

[jarmo]

Wasn't Velvet Revolver a "real band", yet Scott told the guys the songs they gave to him, he didn't want to work on... And then they made a second album to his liking, or whatever the excuse was.

Imagine that.



Seems to me like many bands work the same way, yet only Axl gets shit for it.




/jarmo

[Limulus]

[...]Gilby's statement implies that Axl needs to do something that he hasn't been doing - he needs to change - by allowing the band to contribute.  The band did contribute on every single song and got songwriting credits to prove it on every song but "This I Love".  The problem is you are trying to attribute your definition of the word "contribute" to what Gilby means.  I'm taking what Gilby said at face value and offering a fact-based response on why Gilby is off-base.  That's it and that's all.  I'm done.

Ali

and your problem is that you take your "contribute"-definiton as being the only one fitting for your interpretation of Gilby's words. Gilby didnt say "CD members didnt contribute on CD!" but you're taking his words as if he exactly said that. he didnt even mention CD, neither the question was about that album. as said before the meaning of "contribution" could start with members just playing on an album. add that we rarely have an idea how the contribution part really works in Guns camp anyway. my guess based on old and newer interviews would be it changed a lot from old Guns to new Guns - as Axl being the main man to decide now. even if Finck or whoever talked Axl into doing TIL, it was Axl signing it off to be on CD. if he really wouldnt want it to be on it he would have dropped it. also i dont trust those song writing credits, exspecially that CD booklet at all. but i see your point, i do have mine.

yeah, Jarmo is right here....lots of bands work similar and/or have their own issues. but lots still has to do with carrying on with the huge GN'R name after all those years. the main public doesnt seem to accept CD that much and do rate it as inferior to prior albums.
but hell, Axl still is alive and there might more killer albums to come. hopefully. hope dies last.

as for your question, Jarmo, sure i wouldnt put much thoughts and believes into that person. nice comparing and i could agree with it if ("IF") Gilby really was talking about CD. it also could be bitterness cause of his non writing credits on old Guns albums, it could be his general thoughts on creating a great album, it could be just blabbering, we simply cant know for sure!! as it was such a short answer its surprising that we put so much energy in putting our different views on it.

my current signature and quote are coming from ex-band members directly by the way.

[Stoned_In_L.A.]

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. 

Precisely.

And chances are, this is exactly what Gilby meant by Axl needing to allow his bandmates to contribute.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Axl tells his band that they can't present anything for consideration. The issue is, he appears to consider himself the final decision maker.

I don't believe most traditional "bands" operate under that mentality, nor should they.

[D]

Wasn't Velvet Revolver a "real band", yet Scott told the guys the songs they gave to him, he didn't want to work on... And then they made a second album to his liking, or whatever the excuse was.

Imagine that.



Seems to me like many bands work the same way, yet only Axl gets shit for it.




/jarmo

I've said for a long time now, that I don't buy the Axl is hard to work with shit... Only he expects everyone's best and will settle for nothing less. I think the other guys liked making quick simple stuff whereas Axl knew they could do great things.

Hell in my tiny nothing of a band..... If I don't like it.. it doesn't get used... so i say that system works on most levels.

On the flip side though... I can see how everything could implode though.. In slash's mind he was as valuable as Axl..so why should he have final say on what Slash writes but yet record shows Slash wrote his best stuff when Axl had said final say..... So its kind of an ego thing..... As Jon bon jovi says.. u can only have one QB and everyone has to be on board and trust ur vision.  Axl has that now.

[faldor]

I think Gilby's still a little sore from being booted from the band because Axl wasn't pleased with what he was bringing to the table in a songwriting sense.  That's why he feels that Axl doesn't let band members contribute.  If what you bring to him isn't any good, then no, your contributions aren't needed.  Sorry Gilby, better luck next time. 

And maybe that's what Gilby meant by 'not allowing his bandmates to contribute' ...

Like I said, Axl didn't like what Gilby had to offer so he turned him down.  Just like he offered to work with what Slash brought to him but Slash refused to have it tweaked in any way so he took it for himself for Snakepit.  Do you think Axl should use anything and everything that band members bring his way?  Not sure that'd be a smart move.

What I do think is that most "band" decisions involve input from its members.

When one guy is calling the shots (as you suggested), it then justifies Gilby's comment about Axl needing to allow his band to contribute.

Not really.  Axl is still allowing band members to contribute.  It's just that not everything is used that is brought to the table.  Hell, I'm sure Axl himself has come up with stuff that he later scrapped because it wasn't good enough.  Seems like a pretty simple concept to me, and not a dictatorship as you're trying to portray.

Not good enough for Axl.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the material wasn't good enough to Gilby, you, I, or anyone else.

It does seem like a pretty simple concept.

In most bands, a consensus is involved.

If approval is required by one specific member (as you suggested), that would justify Gilby's comment about the need to allow the bandmates to contribute.

Again, not really.  He ALLOWS members to contribute.  How else can you explain how "Better" has always been described as a "Robin" song.  "The General", which we haven't heard, is supposedly a Tommy song.  Shackler's, Scraped, and Sorry were Brain/Bucket songs.  Dizzy and Paul's contributions are all over the album.  How is that not allowing members to contribute?

No one is denying that Axl has final say.  Guys IN the band have stated that.  I think that happens more frequently in bands then you'd like to believe.  Do you think Steven Adler, Matt Sorum, or Gilby ever had equal say in GNR?  How about the guys in Slash's solo band, you think they have equal say with Slash?  How about Dave Kushner, or even Matt Sorum in Velvet Revolver?  How about anyone not named Van Halen, in Van Halen?  The list goes on and on.

Maybe we're arguing different things here, but we're certainly not seeing eye to eye.

[Ali]

[...]Gilby's statement implies that Axl needs to do something that he hasn't been doing - he needs to change - by allowing the band to contribute.  The band did contribute on every single song and got songwriting credits to prove it on every song but "This I Love".  The problem is you are trying to attribute your definition of the word "contribute" to what Gilby means.  I'm taking what Gilby said at face value and offering a fact-based response on why Gilby is off-base.  That's it and that's all.  I'm done.

Ali

and your problem is that you take your "contribute"-definiton as being the only one fitting for your interpretation of Gilby's words. Gilby didnt say "CD members didnt contribute on CD!" but you're taking his words as if he exactly said that. he didnt even mention CD, neither the question was about that album. as said before the meaning of "contribution" could start with members just playing on an album. add that we rarely have an idea how the contribution part really works in Guns camp anyway. my guess based on old and newer interviews would be it changed a lot from old Guns to new Guns - as Axl being the main man to decide now. even if Finck or whoever talked Axl into doing TIL, it was Axl signing it off to be on CD. if he really wouldnt want it to be on it he would have dropped it. also i dont trust those song writing credits, exspecially that CD booklet at all. but i see your point, i do have mine.

yeah, Jarmo is right here....lots of bands work similar and/or have their own issues. but lots still has to do with carrying on with the huge GN'R name after all those years. the main public doesnt seem to accept CD that much and do rate it as inferior to prior albums.
but hell, Axl still is alive and there might more killer albums to come. hopefully. hope dies last.

as for your question, Jarmo, sure i wouldnt put much thoughts and believes into that person. nice comparing and i could agree with it if ("IF") Gilby really was talking about CD. it also could be bitterness cause of his non writing credits on old Guns albums, it could be his general thoughts on creating a great album, it could be just blabbering, we simply cant know for sure!! as it was such a short answer its surprising that we put so much energy in putting our different views on it.

my current signature and quote are coming from ex-band members directly by the way.

You don't get it.  You say you do, but you clearly don't.  Oh well, I tried.

Ali

[Ali]

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. 

Precisely.

And chances are, this is exactly what Gilby meant by Axl needing to allow his bandmates to contribute.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Axl tells his band that they can't present anything for consideration. The issue is, he appears to consider himself the final decision maker.

I don't believe most traditional "bands" operate under that mentality, nor should they.

Chances are?  Really? Is that because that's what you believe? 

I think you are sorely mistaken about how "most traditional bands" operate.  There is a hierarchy in almost every band.  If you've ever seen the Metallica Behind The Music, you'll see James Hetfield talking about how writing parts for Jason and Kirk and telling them what to play had gotten old.  As D said, if Jon Bon Jovi, the namesake of the band, doesn't like something, it won't get played.  Iron Maiden is driven by Steve Harris, period.  As Jarmo said, this is what happened with VR according to Weiland:  "When Weiland first heard about a group that included Slash, Duff McKagan, Matt Sorum and Dave Kushner, he said: ?Sounds like a lot of egos. Sounds like a lot of trouble.? And he wasn?t too impressed when they sent him a demo CD.

?It sounded like Bad Company-styled classic rock,? he wrote. ?And I never liked Bad Company. But being a nice guy, I said, ?There?s some stuff that?s okay, but just send me another disc when you have a few new songs.?

A week or so later, another CD arrived with songs custom-designed for me. The tunes had STP written all over them."

Scott Weiland openly admitted he dictated the creative direction of the band.

It happens in many bands with one or two members being the primary songwriters and/or decision-makers.

Ali

[jacdaniel]

IMHO, Guns has become less of a band over the years.  When Izzy left Guns it was Slash's job to find a replacement guitarist and Axl had to approve also.   But fast forward a few years when Gilby got fired and suddenly it was Axl that hired a new guitar player that Slash didnt seem to approve of.  (Paul).   

Certainly in the earlier days, the likes of Slash + Duff seemed to have a bigger say in big decisions.

I dont think you can really compare VR to Guns.  Scott never claimed he had full control although perhaps the band did create material more suited to him. But at the end of the day, they still had to power to get rid of him at any point if neccesary. 

I think this is what Gilby is getting at when he talks about allowing band members to contribute.  Of course they can send Axl material and contribute to songs etc... but there are no other core members of the band.  Any of them could be replaced at any point regardless of the other members opinions.   

And none of the band members seem to have a clue when/if new material might be released, when they might be touring etc etc.

Of course.. Slash is currently taking the same approach with his solo work.  He's even openly stated that he likes to have full control for once.  He's very honest about it being a solo project though.

[AxlReznor]

That's because only Slash writes music for his solo stuff... he lets the singers come up with melodies and lyrics, but at the end of the day those songs are 90% Slash's, because he came up with everything else.
And Gilby was referring to contributing to a record... not everyday decisions.

[faldor]

And none of the band members seem to have a clue when/if new material might be released, when they might be touring etc etc.

This may be the perception they give, or you get from them, but I don't think that's the actual case.  Members have hinted at tours and new music releases before.  They've explained a million times why they try not to do it, it's not their business announcing GNR's plans and ventures.  They leave that up to band management.  And they will announce things that are 100% concrete and definite.  They just don't want to go through the shitstorm that was the wait for Chinese Democracy, with endless rumors.  I don't think the guys are sitting at home with no clue what's going on in the band.  I'm quite sure they know that they have some dates coming up in the fall and of further touring "PLANS".  I'm sure they know there's more music in the vault that they hope will get released some day.  When there's something to tell, they'll tell.

[Smoking Guns]

"Shotgun Blues" and probably "My World" are two Rose songs that should have been on the cutting floor and weren't..  Go figure.

[Ali]

And Gilby was referring to contributing to a record... not everyday decisions.

Yes, exactly.  In reference to a potential next record, he said that Axl needed to let the band contribute.  As if he hadn't done that before.  I fail to see what is so difficult about that for others to grasp.

Ali

[Bodhi]

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. 

Precisely.

And chances are, this is exactly what Gilby meant by Axl needing to allow his bandmates to contribute.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Axl tells his band that they can't present anything for consideration. The issue is, he appears to consider himself the final decision maker.

I don't believe most traditional "bands" operate under that mentality, nor should they.

ok, you only took part of my quote and from this it looks like that is MY opinion, which it isnt.  Just clarifying that was me breaking down one side of peoples argument here,  I am still in the camp of Gilby has no idea what the fuck goes on in modern day Guns N Roses...

[Ali]

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. 

Precisely.

And chances are, this is exactly what Gilby meant by Axl needing to allow his bandmates to contribute.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Axl tells his band that they can't present anything for consideration. The issue is, he appears to consider himself the final decision maker.

I don't believe most traditional "bands" operate under that mentality, nor should they.

ok, you only took part of my quote and from this it looks like that is MY opinion, which it isnt.  Just clarifying that was me breaking down one side of peoples argument here,  I am still in the camp of Gilby has no idea what the fuck goes on in modern day Guns N Roses...

If anyone thinks Gilby has any idea what goes on in the current GN'R, they are delusional.  He hasn't been in GN'R for nearly two decades.  How the hell could he possibly know what's going on in the band now?  C'mon people.

Ali

P.S. Did anyone see that new interview with Tommy where he says GN'R is "more of a collaborative band-thing" when they write?

[westcoast_junkie]

Read the new interview with Tommy posted in the GnR section. He says Guns is "more of a collaborative band thing - when we write, anyway". Gilby clearly don't know how things works in Gn'R if he implied they need to change their ways of making music to get it good....

It may seem like me and a lot of others are negative towards Gilby Clarke as a person, but let me just say I like everyone who has been involved in Gn'R!