New Dj interview at LegendaryRockInterviews.com (Sep 2014)

[D-GenerationX]

I suppose what you could argue is, Axl turned GN'R from a Beatles sort of set up, that is, 3-4 members of (loosely) equal democratic importance, into a Motorhead/Lizzy type set up, that is, one member and a bunch of guys basically. Legalistically, in terms of power and control, at least that is what happened. Musically, Axl incorporated the other members on Chinese but you can rest assured that none of the other members could veto some Axl decision (would any have said, ''I hate This I Love, let's axe it''?).

Raising points like this generally get you scolded that you aren't there so you can't say.

Yeah, all common sense would seem to support this rather basic premise, but so often we must shut off all common sense talking about this band.

[14 Yrs Of Silence]

I suppose what you could argue is, Axl turned GN'R from a Beatles sort of set up, that is, 3-4 members of (loosely) equal democratic importance, into a Motorhead/Lizzy type set up, that is, one member and a bunch of guys basically. Legalistically, in terms of power and control, at least that is what happened. Musically, Axl incorporated the other members on Chinese but you can rest assured that none of the other members could veto some Axl decision (would any have said, ''I hate This I Love, let's axe it''?).

Raising points like this generally get you scolded that you aren't there so you can't say.

Yeah, all common sense would seem to support this rather basic premise, but so often we must shut off all common sense talking about this band.

Don't put words in Ali's mouth!

[D-GenerationX]

I suppose what you could argue is, Axl turned GN'R from a Beatles sort of set up, that is, 3-4 members of (loosely) equal democratic importance, into a Motorhead/Lizzy type set up, that is, one member and a bunch of guys basically. Legalistically, in terms of power and control, at least that is what happened. Musically, Axl incorporated the other members on Chinese but you can rest assured that none of the other members could veto some Axl decision (would any have said, ''I hate This I Love, let's axe it''?).

Raising points like this generally get you scolded that you aren't there so you can't say.

Yeah, all common sense would seem to support this rather basic premise, but so often we must shut off all common sense talking about this band.

Don't put words in Ali's mouth!

Hahahahaha

I was trying to not to name names.

[jarmo]

I suppose what you could argue is, Axl turned GN'R from a Beatles sort of set up, that is, 3-4 members of (loosely) equal democratic importance, into a Motorhead/Lizzy type set up, that is, one member and a bunch of guys basically. Legalistically, in terms of power and control, at least that is what happened. Musically, Axl incorporated the other members on Chinese but you can rest assured that none of the other members could veto some Axl decision (would any have said, ''I hate This I Love, let's axe it''?).

Axl didn't have to do anything. He had no choice. People quit.
He was the last man left on the ship, obviously somebody needed to take charge.

This is conveniently always translated into "Axl did...".




/jarmo

[LongGoneDay]

I suppose what you could argue is, Axl turned GN'R from a Beatles sort of set up, that is, 3-4 members of (loosely) equal democratic importance, into a Motorhead/Lizzy type set up, that is, one member and a bunch of guys basically. Legalistically, in terms of power and control, at least that is what happened. Musically, Axl incorporated the other members on Chinese but you can rest assured that none of the other members could veto some Axl decision (would any have said, ''I hate This I Love, let's axe it''?).

Axl didn't have to do anything. He had no choice. People quit.
He was the last man left on the ship, obviously somebody needed to take charge.

This is conveniently always translated into "Axl did...".




/jarmo

The ship sank.
Axl built a new one, kept the same name.

[jarmo]

There's more things than just the name that are still the same with GN'R today, as they were in the past. People just (choose to) forget that.




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

I suppose what you could argue is, Axl turned GN'R from a Beatles sort of set up, that is, 3-4 members of (loosely) equal democratic importance, into a Motorhead/Lizzy type set up, that is, one member and a bunch of guys basically. Legalistically, in terms of power and control, at least that is what happened. Musically, Axl incorporated the other members on Chinese but you can rest assured that none of the other members could veto some Axl decision (would any have said, ''I hate This I Love, let's axe it''?).

Axl didn't have to do anything. He had no choice. People quit.
He was the last man left on the ship, obviously somebody needed to take charge.

This is conveniently always translated into "Axl did...".

How does this address anything he said?

Are you refuting the theory that Axl is the supreme ruler of this "band"?

[D-GenerationX]

There's more things than just the name that are still the same with GN'R today, as they were in the past. People just (choose to) forget that.

No, they just don't choose to play along with your extremely strained analogies because they don't feel your same need to try and massage the situation.

Everyone leaving the damn band is not the same as Gilby replacing Izzy mid-tour.  I don't care how many times you try and run that up the flagpole.

This "same as it ever was" narrative you push is pretty silly.  There are 2 distinct eras of this band.  Why can't we just say that? 

Think of the time we'd save on the same arguments.

[mortismurphy]

You are forgetting the fact that new Guns N' Rose have a completely different legal make-up from the old band. Axl actually dissolved the old partnership and formed a new one in its place. Legalistically it is a different band. It just happens to share the same name as the old band.

"This will serve as notice [that] effective [...] Decemeber 30th 1995, I will withdraw from the partnership. [...] I intend to use the name 'Guns N' Roses' in connection with a new group which I will form." (Slash & Duff v. Axl lawsuit document, 2004)

http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?id=3350

[Ali]

I disagree with Ali. I do not think there is any doubt that GN'R would have remained at, at least arena level. I could certainly see their crowds take a hammering. I could see the end of stadia, certainly, but they would have never plummeted to theatre levels. The fact that Axl could return minus the rest of GN'R in 2002, and still enter arenas, proves this point. Sweet Child and November Rain draw in too many casuals.

I never said they wouldn't have maintained arena level attendance.  I saw GN'R at the LA Forum in 2011 and it was packed.  But GN'R was also playing stadiums in the early 90's.  You're disagreeing with a point I never actually made.

Ali

[Ali]

There is simply no analogy to be made, between any other band, and Axl's GN'R. Other bands either maintained a core unit (Metallica, Stones), were originally built around one member (Motorhead and Lizzy) or went to hell, to ever decreasing album and ticket sales (Iommi's Sabbath). What Axl did was truly unprecedented.

Simply not true.  One example I can easily think of is Smashing Pumpkins.  Another one would be Days of the New.  Queensryche lost their two principle songwriters on their first seven studio releases (Chris DeGarmo and Geoff Tate) and have still soldiered on.

Ali

[Ali]

I suppose what you could argue is, Axl turned GN'R from a Beatles sort of set up, that is, 3-4 members of (loosely) equal democratic importance, into a Motorhead/Lizzy type set up, that is, one member and a bunch of guys basically. Legalistically, in terms of power and control, at least that is what happened. Musically, Axl incorporated the other members on Chinese but you can rest assured that none of the other members could veto some Axl decision (would any have said, ''I hate This I Love, let's axe it''?).

Raising points like this generally get you scolded that you aren't there so you can't say.

Yeah, all common sense would seem to support this rather basic premise, but so often we must shut off all common sense talking about this band.

Don't put words in Ali's mouth!

Excuse me?  Did I ever disagree with that assessment of the current legal status of the band?  Or, are you just making something up to take a cheap pot shot?

Ali

[D-GenerationX]

I suppose what you could argue is, Axl turned GN'R from a Beatles sort of set up, that is, 3-4 members of (loosely) equal democratic importance, into a Motorhead/Lizzy type set up, that is, one member and a bunch of guys basically. Legalistically, in terms of power and control, at least that is what happened. Musically, Axl incorporated the other members on Chinese but you can rest assured that none of the other members could veto some Axl decision (would any have said, ''I hate This I Love, let's axe it''?).

Raising points like this generally get you scolded that you aren't there so you can't say.

Yeah, all common sense would seem to support this rather basic premise, but so often we must shut off all common sense talking about this band.

Don't put words in Ali's mouth!

Excuse me?  Did I ever disagree with that assessment of the current legal status of the band?  Or, are you just making something up to take a cheap pot shot?

Ali

You must admit, it sounds like something you'd say.  You are the alltime champion of benefit of the doubt. 

You'd make a great defense attorney.  You could be presented with a guy standing over someone stabbed to death with a blood covered person holding a knife standing over them, yet assure us we should not take that to mean anything.

[Ali]

I suppose what you could argue is, Axl turned GN'R from a Beatles sort of set up, that is, 3-4 members of (loosely) equal democratic importance, into a Motorhead/Lizzy type set up, that is, one member and a bunch of guys basically. Legalistically, in terms of power and control, at least that is what happened. Musically, Axl incorporated the other members on Chinese but you can rest assured that none of the other members could veto some Axl decision (would any have said, ''I hate This I Love, let's axe it''?).

Raising points like this generally get you scolded that you aren't there so you can't say.

Yeah, all common sense would seem to support this rather basic premise, but so often we must shut off all common sense talking about this band.

Don't put words in Ali's mouth!

Excuse me?  Did I ever disagree with that assessment of the current legal status of the band?  Or, are you just making something up to take a cheap pot shot?

Ali

You must admit, it sounds like something you'd say.  You are the alltime champion of benefit of the doubt. 

You'd make a great defense attorney.  You could be presented with a guy standing over someone stabbed to death with a blood covered person holding a knife standing over them, yet assure us we should not take that to mean anything.

Don't presume to know what I'd say or not say.  I have never disputed the legal status of GN'R.  It is like NIN, legally, where Axl owns the name and everyone else is hired at his discretion ultimately.  But, creatively, it's more collaborative.

Which, ultimately, is what I care about as the the songwriting and quality of songs matters to me as a fan, whereas the legal boundaries only affect those in the band.

Ali

[D-GenerationX]

Don't presume to know what I'd say or not say.  I have never disputed the legal status of GN'R.  It is like NIN, legally, where Axl owns the name and everyone else is hired at his discretion ultimately.  But, creatively, it's more collaborative.

Which, ultimately, is what I care about as the the songwriting and quality of songs matters to me as a fan, whereas the legal boundaries only affect those in the band.

Who's is talking legal status?  We are talking about this :

Musically, Axl incorporated the other members on Chinese but you can rest assured that none of the other members could veto some Axl decision (would any have said, ''I hate This I Love, let's axe it''?)

I made the point that this is obvious to just about the whole world, but bring that up around here and we are scolded for not being there so we can't say.  As I said, shutting off common sense.

And face it, that's the sort of thing you would say, so that's why both your name was dropped and I found it funny.  Because my original repose to it began "And then here comes Ali to scold us...", so I wasn't the only one thinking it.

[mortismurphy]

There is simply no analogy to be made, between any other band, and Axl's GN'R. Other bands either maintained a core unit (Metallica, Stones), were originally built around one member (Motorhead and Lizzy) or went to hell, to ever decreasing album and ticket sales (Iommi's Sabbath). What Axl did was truly unprecedented.

Simply not true.  One example I can easily think of is Smashing Pumpkins.  Another one would be Days of the New.  Queensryche lost their two principle songwriters on their first seven studio releases (Chris DeGarmo and Geoff Tate) and have still soldiered on.

Ali

You missed the point when I said, ''went to hell, to ever decreasing album and ticket sales''. And do their respective fan bases, the Pumpkins and Queensr?che, not also have significant majorities who deny their legitimacy to carry the name just like GN'R fans. I know there were two line-ups of the latter competing for the name in the courts. I can only imagine the forum debates were just as volatile as, that legal absurdity. Is there not also a big clamour for the Mellon Collie era Pumpkins.

[D-GenerationX]

Know what gets me?

For a side of the argument that claims so vociferously they don't care what people think...gotta tell ya, they care what people think.  Not about them, specifically, but how other people see it.

Why can we not just say that the overwhelming majority of rock fans don't consider this Guns N' Roses, never will, and oh well? 

We are all still enjoying it on some level.  Aren't we?  From the "Is what it is, I'll take what I can get" types right on through "Of course its Guns N' Roses, its never been more Guns N' Roses, god damn it" types.  We are all rolling with it.  It still works for us.

It matters that most of the world can't make their peace as we have?  That's an unwinnable war and shouldn't be fought.

[Ali]

Don't presume to know what I'd say or not say.  I have never disputed the legal status of GN'R.  It is like NIN, legally, where Axl owns the name and everyone else is hired at his discretion ultimately.  But, creatively, it's more collaborative.

Which, ultimately, is what I care about as the the songwriting and quality of songs matters to me as a fan, whereas the legal boundaries only affect those in the band.

Who's is talking legal status?  We are talking about this :

Musically, Axl incorporated the other members on Chinese but you can rest assured that none of the other members could veto some Axl decision (would any have said, ''I hate This I Love, let's axe it''?)

I made the point that this is obvious to just about the whole world, but bring that up around here and we are scolded for not being there so we can't say.  As I said, shutting off common sense.

And face it, that's the sort of thing you would say, so that's why both your name was dropped and I found it funny.  Because my original repose to it began "And then here comes Ali to scold us...", so I wasn't the only one thinking it.

If Axl legally owns the name Guns N' Roses, then doesn't it follow logically that all decisions, like tracklisting for an album, would have to have him on board in order to proceed?

So, if and when, you don't have an argument that I find logically sound, or if there is another side of an argument not being considered, then, yes, I'll chime in if I so choose.  But, you presumed to know how I'd respond and what my position would be and you are mistaken.  Which is why I said, "don't presume to know what I'd say or not say".

Ali

[Ali]

There is simply no analogy to be made, between any other band, and Axl's GN'R. Other bands either maintained a core unit (Metallica, Stones), were originally built around one member (Motorhead and Lizzy) or went to hell, to ever decreasing album and ticket sales (Iommi's Sabbath). What Axl did was truly unprecedented.

Simply not true.  One example I can easily think of is Smashing Pumpkins.  Another one would be Days of the New.  Queensryche lost their two principle songwriters on their first seven studio releases (Chris DeGarmo and Geoff Tate) and have still soldiered on.

Ali

You missed the point when I said, ''went to hell, to ever decreasing album and ticket sales''. And do their respective fan bases, the Pumpkins and Queensr?che, not also have significant majorities who deny their legitimacy to carry the name just like GN'R fans. I know there were two line-ups of the latter competing for the name in the courts. I can only imagine the forum debates were just as volatile as, that legal absurdity. Is there not also a big clamour for the Mellon Collie era Pumpkins.

Not sure what your point is then.  Smashing Pumpkins saw declining record sales even when Melissa Auf Der Maur replaced D'Arcy Wretzky, and even when Jimmy Chamberlin rejoined the band.  Now Billy Corgan has soldiered with a new lineup, just as Axl has.  Yes, there are people that disagree with Corgan's decision to continue on with Smashing Pumpkins, and those I've spoke to disagree because they do not believe the band was originally built around him solely.  I don't see how what Axl did is so unprecedented.  The exact timeline and path, and even results may be different or debateable, but the path he and GN'R have gone down is not completely unprecedented.

Ali

[D-GenerationX]

If Axl legally owns the name Guns N' Roses, then doesn't it follow logically that all decisions, like tracklisting for an album, would have to have him on board in order to proceed?ltimately

Ultimately, yes.

But don't you think if phrased differently, you get pushback?

Suppose instead of talking in business terms as you've done, the point is introduced via an observation this isn't much more than a dictatorship as opposed to a collaborative operation?  Axl is the king, the others down what they're told.

You know that would be fought.  I think it would be fought by you, probably.

But how is it different than your point?  We're arriving at the same place.

So, if and when, you don't have an argument that I find logically sound, or if there is another side of an argument not being considered, then, yes, I'll chime in if I so choose.  But, you presumed to know how I'd respond and what my position would be and you are mistaken.  Which is why I said, "don't presume to know what I'd say or not say".

I'm not putting words in your mouth.

I'm saying you have shown time and again that you jump in with a seemingly reflexive skepticism towards any sort of established line of thinking.  You question just about every perception, sometimes on the flimsiest of rationales.  You can "disprove" any perceived situation on the planet by saying that if we aren't in the room, we can't say.  While technically we can't rule out what you say, its highly bloody unlikely.

Do you NOT think you do that?  You do that on every board I have ever posted at with you, and I count at least three.